We’ve heard it over and over: Democratic candidates win cities. Researchers have tracked the way Democrats have dominated in cities since the ’90s. Politicians bring up America’s deep-blue cities constantly, including in stump speeches and in every debate over the Electoral College. Even FiveThirtyEight couldn’t resist joining in: In December, Galen Druke and I showed how America’s cities and tightly packed suburbs shifted toward Democrats in the most recent midterm election. The more densely populated the place, the more Democratic the voters.

But just because Republicans aren’t winning in cities doesn’t mean that no Republicans live there. Much has been made of the country’s urban-rural political divide, but almost every Democratic city has Republican enclaves, especially when you think about cities as more than just their downtowns. It’s a sign of our polarized times that these Republicans aren’t evenly distributed across the city, of course. But it’s also a sign of how centuries of American history have shaped and continue to shape where we live — and who our neighbors are.

But before we get to the sociology, let’s dig in to the geography. What did the political landscape of the city1 closest to you look like in 2016?

The political geography of large metropolitan areas

Each precinct’s two-party margin in the 2016 presidential election

D+100 0 R+100

Submit

You may notice that the map includes areas that you don’t consider urban. Take it up with the Census Bureau. The agency defines urbanized areas based on population density and how the land is used, and it has been adapting that definition for over 100 years as Americans’ settlement patterns have changed. Part of that process has been accounting for growing levels of urban sprawl and the increasing fuzziness of the lines between suburban and rural areas.

When you expand the definition of urban areas beyond their downtown areas, cities start to look less Democratic and less densely populated. In more than half of the country’s 153 biggest urban areas, Democrats got between 40 and 60 percent of the 2016 two-party vote share2 — the share of votes that went to one of the two major parties, ignoring third-party votes and write-in candidates. Many of those urban areas aren’t small, tightly packed areas like Manhattan but sprawling, low-density regions like Phoenix, say, or Jacksonville, Florida.

Across the country, Republicans in urban areas are more likely to be found in the less-centralized, lower-density neighborhoods. “Even if you look within the same census tract or the same ZIP code or the same precinct, and even if you’re in a place like Manhattan, Republicans will search out the less-dense part to live in,” said Steven Webster, a political scientist at Washington University.

That complicates what we tend to hear about Americans’ political segregation, which is often defined in sweeping urban vs. rural terms. Lily Geismer, a professor of political and urban history at Claremont McKenna College, said the old red-blue dichotomy has “actually been replaced by this kind of urban-rural split.” But that way of looking at things isn’t as nuanced as it needs to be, she said. Describing political polarization as urban vs. rural ignores all the forces that tug people apart within urban areas.

To see just how politically segregated America’s urban areas are, we used each city’s 2016 election results to calculate its dissimilarity index3 — basically, a number that tells us how separated its Republicans and Democrats are from one another, with higher numbers indicating more segregation. This technique is most often used to measure racial segregation, but political scientists have also used it to calculate partisan segregation. (One drawback of this method: A place that votes almost uniformly for one party — Democrat-soaked San Jose, California, for example — will have a low dissimilarity score. But that doesn’t mean Republicans and Democrats live next to each other in these places; it may just mean that the larger region is politically segregated, leaving the whole city as essentially a one-party enclave.) Those calculations generated a ranking of the country’s most politically segregated cities. Here are the top 20:

The most politically polarized cities in the U.S.

Two-party vote margin for urban areas with the highest partisan segregation

D+100 0 R+100

FiveThirtyEight SOURCES: Decision Desk HQ, U.S. Census Bureau

And here’s where the city closest to you ranks among the country’s most populous urban areas in terms of their partisan dissimilarity index:

How divided are the largest U.S. cities?

Urban areas ranked by 2016 partisan segregation and GOP vote share

Urban area GOP vote share ▲ ▼ Partisan segregation ▲ ▼ ... 1 Jackson, Mississippi 39.9% 0.63 2 New Orleans 41.6% 0.58 3 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 49.7% 0.56 4 Birmingham, Alabama 45.5% 0.56 5 Shreveport, Louisiana 44.4% 0.56 6 Greater Memphis area, Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas 36.4% 0.55 7 Greater Columbus area, Georgia and Alabama 39.1% 0.52 8 Mobile, Alabama 48.2% 0.51 9 Montgomery, Alabama 41.8% 0.50 10 Greater New York City area 33.3% 0.47 11 Lafayette, Louisiana 63.9% 0.47 12 Greater Augusta area, Georgia and South Carolina 49.7% 0.45 13 Savannah, Georgia 36.5% 0.45 14 Atlanta 40.0% 0.45 15 Baltimore 36.7% 0.43 16 Columbia, South Carolina 46.1% 0.42 17 Greater Chicago area 29.6% 0.40 18 Richmond, Virginia 38.8% 0.39 19 Milwaukee 40.8% 0.39 20 Houston 44.2% 0.38 21 Cleveland 38.3% 0.38 22 Little Rock, Arkansas 43.6% 0.38 23 Greater St. Louis area 42.9% 0.38 24 Greater Philadelphia area 32.7% 0.36 25 Greensboro, North Carolina 31.4% 0.36 26 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 44.1% 0.36 27 Greater Chattanooga area, Tennessee and Georgia 58.1% 0.36 28 Indianapolis 48.6% 0.36 29 Greater Charlotte area, North Carolina and South Carolina 40.3% 0.36 30 Greater Washington, D.C., area 23.1% 0.36 31 Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee 46.4% 0.35 32 Detroit 41.7% 0.35 33 Greater Cincinnati area 53.3% 0.34 34 Greater Los Angeles area 27.4% 0.34 35 Trenton, New Jersey 33.8% 0.34 36 Flint, Michigan 40.1% 0.34 37 Virginia Beach, Virginia 42.1% 0.33 38 Asheville, North Carolina 42.3% 0.33 39 Bakersfield, California 55.0% 0.32 40 Greater Dallas area 47.2% 0.32 41 Austin, Texas 32.8% 0.32 42 Eugene, Oregon 31.4% 0.31 43 Portland, Oregon 30.4% 0.31 44 Greater Springfield area, Massachusetts 37.3% 0.31 45 Seattle 28.5% 0.30 46 Jacksonville, Florida 54.2% 0.30 47 Tallahassee, Florida 32.7% 0.30 48 Greater Louisville area, Kentucky and Indiana 46.4% 0.30 49 Fayetteville, North Carolina 36.8% 0.30 50 Huntsville, Alabama 54.8% 0.29 51 Greenville, South Carolina 63.7% 0.29 52 Reading, Pennsylvania 45.8% 0.29 53 Dayton, Ohio 53.6% 0.29 54 Greater Boston area 32.2% 0.29 55 Fresno, California 45.1% 0.29 56 Pittsburgh 46.1% 0.29 57 Columbus, Ohio 38.0% 0.29 58 Ann Arbor, Michigan 21.9% 0.29 59 Buffalo, New York 44.2% 0.29 60 Greater Salt Lake City area 43.8% 0.28 61 Greater San Francisco area 13.4% 0.28 62 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49.9% 0.28 63 New Haven, Connecticut 40.9% 0.28 64 Indio-Cathedral City, California 40.6% 0.28 65 San Antonio 43.2% 0.28 66 Greater Pensacola area, Florida and Alabama 60.7% 0.28 67 Greater Minneapolis-St. Paul area 36.4% 0.28 68 Durham, North Carolina 15.4% 0.28 69 Tulsa, Oklahoma 62.2% 0.28 70 Charleston-North Charleston, South Carolina 50.5% 0.28 71 Sacramento, California 40.3% 0.28 72 Miami 35.7% 0.27 73 Greater Kansas City area, Missouri and Kansas 44.3% 0.27 74 Riverside-San Bernardino, California 38.4% 0.27 75 Lubbock, Texas 67.2% 0.27 76 Lancaster-Palmdale, California 40.2% 0.26 77 Greater Toledo area, Ohio and Michigan 42.0% 0.26 78 Orlando, Florida 39.3% 0.26 79 Oklahoma City 58.9% 0.26 80 Greater Denver area 39.0% 0.26 81 Boise, Idaho 53.1% 0.26 82 Hartford, Connecticut 37.0% 0.26 83 Akron, Ohio 46.0% 0.26 84 Corpus Christi, Texas 49.9% 0.26 85 Fort Wayne, Indiana 56.9% 0.26 86 Peoria, Illinois 50.3% 0.26 87 Tucson, Arizona 38.8% 0.25 88 Lancaster, Pennsylvania 53.8% 0.25 89 Greater South Bend area, Indiana and Michigan 48.3% 0.25 90 Fort Collins, Colorado 44.1% 0.25 91 Knoxville, Tennessee 62.4% 0.25 92 Victorville-Hesperia, California 53.7% 0.25 93 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 49.8% 0.25 94 Greater Fayetteville area, Arkansas and Missouri 52.8% 0.25 95 Madison, Wisconsin 20.0% 0.25 96 Rochester, New York 41.8% 0.24 97 San Diego 37.9% 0.24 98 Syracuse, New York 39.9% 0.24 99 Greater Phoenix area 50.7% 0.23 100 Wichita, Kansas 57.2% 0.23 101 Raleigh, North Carolina 38.4% 0.23 102 Antioch, California 30.5% 0.23 103 Kissimmee, Florida 31.9% 0.23 104 Greater Youngstown area, Ohio and Pennsylvania 44.8% 0.23 105 Stockton, California 31.4% 0.23 106 Greater Stamford area, Connecticut and New York 39.8% 0.23 107 Greater El Paso area, Texas and New Mexico 26.5% 0.22 108 Greater Allentown area, Pennsylvania and New Jersey 47.6% 0.22 109 Denton-Lewisville, Texas 57.1% 0.22 110 Greater Poughkeepsie area, New York and New Jersey 48.0% 0.22 111 Albany-Schenectady, New York 39.5% 0.22 112 Tampa-St. Petersburg, Florida 49.2% 0.22 113 Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky 44.3% 0.22 114 Albuquerque, New Mexico 40.7% 0.22 115 Oxnard, California 30.8% 0.22 116 Greater Las Vegas area 43.3% 0.21 117 Greater Providence area, Rhode Island and Massachusetts 41.2% 0.21 118 Rockford, Illinois 47.6% 0.21 119 McAllen, Texas 30.0% 0.21 120 Greater Omaha area, Nebraska and Iowa 53.9% 0.20 121 Lansing, Michigan 33.1% 0.20 122 Lakeland, Florida 64.1% 0.20 123 Laredo, Texas 23.2% 0.19 124 Greater Worcester area, Massachusetts and Connecticut 39.8% 0.19 125 Des Moines, Iowa 42.4% 0.19 126 Ogden-Layton, Utah 65.7% 0.19 127 Port St. Lucie, Florida 54.2% 0.18 128 Greater Reno area, Nevada and California 47.3% 0.18 129 Greater Round Lake Beach area, Illinois and Wisconsin 49.3% 0.18 130 Provo-Orem, Utah 77.4% 0.18 131 Springfield, Missouri 62.1% 0.18 132 Spokane, Washington 51.1% 0.18 133 Canton, Ohio 55.2% 0.18 134 Colorado Springs, Colorado 59.6% 0.17 135 Modesto, California 46.2% 0.16 136 San Jose, California 20.9% 0.15 137 Lincoln, Nebraska 46.8% 0.15 138 Palm Coast-Daytona Beach-Port Orange, Florida 56.2% 0.15 139 Cape Coral, Florida 58.6% 0.15 140 Sarasota-Bradenton, Florida 55.5% 0.14 141 Greater Davenport area, Iowa and Illinois 44.0% 0.14 142 Scranton, Pennsylvania 49.2% 0.14 143 Anchorage, Alaska 52.5% 0.14 144 Concord, California 29.7% 0.14 145 Conroe-The Woodlands, Texas 70.0% 0.13 146 Mission Viejo-Lake Forest-San Clemente, California 51.8% 0.13 147 Santa Clarita, California 48.1% 0.13 148 Santa Rosa, California 24.0% 0.12 149 Palm Bay-Melbourne, Florida 58.7% 0.12 150 Greater Myrtle Beach area, South Carolina and North Carolina 69.2% 0.12 151 City of Honolulu 33.0% 0.12 152 Bonita Springs, Florida 63.8% 0.12 153 Murrieta-Temecula-Menifee, California 59.8% 0.10

FiveThirtyEight SOURCES: Decision Desk HQ, U.S. Census Bureau

An obvious trend jumps out when you look at the most politically segregated cities: They’re also the cities with some of the highest proportions of black residents. The persistence of racial segregation in American cities continues to define those cities’ politics. “There is still the question of why these things persist now, 51 years after the Fair Housing Act,” said Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, professor of African American studies at Princeton. “Part of the reason is the federal government continues to connect its housing policies to private-sector housing producers. The programs, to the extent that they do exist, are yoked to the private sector, which not only has a history steeped in racial discrimination but has made contemporary practices that are connected to that. This is not ancient history.”

It’s not surprising, then, that when we looked at the country’s largest cities, we found a strong correlation between black-white segregation and political segregation. Since black voters are almost uniformly Democrats, it stands to reason that when many of a city’s black residents live in just a few areas, those areas will be overwhelmingly Democratic, and fewer Democrats will be living next door to Republicans. The same dynamic holds true when you group together all Hispanic and nonwhite voters, though the correlation isn’t as strong. And that’s why, when you chart a city’s racial segregation4 against its partisan segregation, you can see that as one goes up, the other tends to rise as well:

Racial segregation and partisan segregation go together

Two-party partisan segregation index vs. racial segregation index

Selected urban area

FiveThirtyEight SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, Decision Desk HQ

But racial segregation alone can’t explain how polarized our cities are. Even in many cities with relatively few Hispanic and nonwhite residents, we see similar patterns of political segregation, with more Republicans in the less-densely populated outer edges of the urban areas and more Democrats in the tightly packed downtowns. These trends show up even in cities that are over 80 percent white, such as Springfield, Missouri; Boise, Idaho; Spokane, Washington; and Pittsburgh.

Many of the whitest metro areas are also politically segregated

Two-party vote margin for metro areas with the highest share of white residents

D+100 0 R+100

FiveThirtyEight SOURCES: Decision Desk HQ, U.S. Census Bureau

Researchers have plenty of theories as to why this happens. The best-known hypothesis comes from “The Big Sort,” a 2008 book co-authored by journalist Bill Bishop that described Americans as choosing to live in homogenous communities according to their how they live and their political preferences. “It’s identity all the way down,” Bishop said. “Places are getting more segregated. It is a function of choice, economy, work, lifestyle. … Lifestyle these days equate[s] to political choice.”

Two political scientists — Washington University’s Webster and Stanford’s Gregory Martin — recently explored the inverse of the “Big Sort” theory by trying to calculate how much partisan polarization was driven by Americans’ decisions about where to move. “Republicans and Democrats, they would like to live around other Republicans and Democrats, but that desire is small compared to more practical things, like the affordability of homes or the quality of schools,” Webster said. Instead, he said, “places shape people” more than people are sorting themselves into places.

Researchers agree that as politics have become more identity-driven and polarized, those factors are exacerbating the country’s geographic polarization. And that geographic polarization may, in turn, be contributing to our political polarization.

Come 2020, all these factors are still going to be in play. Racial segregation isn’t going to magically disappear in the next year. According to a 2018 analysis by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a nonprofit that helps secure more funding for underserved communities, in three out of four neighborhoods subjected to a practice known as “redlining” — in which banks and the federal government made it almost impossible to get a mortgage in African American neighborhoods, reinforcing the practice of housing segregation in those communities — the median income, even today, is still at least 20 percent lower than the median for the larger area. Over half of these neighborhoods are still primarily nonwhite.

Likewise, Americans are unlikely to stop conflating their identity with their politics anytime soon. If anything, the culture wars of the last few years suggest the opposite. So prepare for another deluge of stories saying that urban Republicans are an endangered species come late 2020. But remember it’s not that they’re not there — it’s just that they’re not winning. And they aren’t living next door to many Democrats, either.