David Montgomery/CityLab

Predominantly suburban congressional districts, once closely divided, are now twice as likely to be represented by a Democrat than by a Republican.

Updated: November 08, 2018

Democrats retook the House of Representatives on the back of a suburban surge Tuesday, remaking a once rock-ribbed Republican bastion into a Democratic stronghold.

Though some districts remained undecided Wednesday afternoon, Democrats had picked up at least 33 seats in Congress, almost all of them predominantly suburban. These suburban districts, once closely divided, are now twice as likely to be represented by a Democrat than by a Republican.​​​​​​ Democrats even lost some seats in rural areas, but picked up at least 22 seats that CityLab's Congressional Density Index classifies as "sparse suburban" or "dense suburban." Add that to Democrat gains in almost all of the remaining Republican-held districts with major urban populations and you have a new, blue majority.

These shifts solidify a political density divide that is only increasing in America. If dense districts usually give us Democrats, and far-flung rural districts usually go to Republicans, it was the suburban places in between—less populous than left-leaning cities, but significantly denser than right-leaning rural areas—that determined control of the House of Representatives.

Another five predominantly suburban districts remained undecided as of Thursday afternoon.

CityLab’s analysis has shown that America’s electoral geography is more complex than a simple divide between “urban” and “rural” areas. There is a continuum of densities in the U.S., even within the category of “suburb.”

Before Tuesday's election, Republicans controlled a majority of the "sparse suburban" districts, where voters tend to live in outer-ring, low-density suburbs. And they held on to one-third of the "dense suburban" districts, which are more tightly packed suburbs often located closer to big cities.

That's all gone now. Democrats control nearly 60 percent of the sparse suburban districts, and more than 80 percent of the dense suburban districts, up from about 67 percent.

This shift wasn't the same everywhere. The suburban swing was strongest in the Midwest, where Democrats picked up seven sparse suburban districts. They went from controlling just 20 percent of these Midwestern outer suburban seats to 55 percent. Democrats also made big gains in northeastern suburbs, where they picked up five sparse suburban districts, driven by gains in Pennsylvania (which replaced a gerrymandered district map with a court-drawn map for this election).

The suburbs aren't monolithically blue in the same way America's urban congressional districts are. Republicans will next year represent only one of 46 decided "urban-suburban mix" districts, after losing most of the few of each they had left on Tuesday. They also lost the only “pure urban” district they still held.

And the suburbs aren’t quite as red as rural America, where Democrats represent 35 out of more than 180 pure rural and rural-suburban mix districts.

But the suburbs, at least for one election, are now comfortably Democratic territory.

Right now 121 million Americans live in predominantly suburban congressional districts. More than 83 million of them are represented by a Democrat. Future elections could reinforce the blue cast of the suburbs or challenge it, but for now, America's swing suburbs have swung to the left.

CORRECTION: Due to an error in CityLab’s data source, a previous version of this article mistakenly listed Texas’s 2nd District as a Democratic pickup and Texas’s 7th District as a Republican hold. The reverse is true: Democrats took Texas’s 7th and Republicans held Texas’s 2nd.

About the Author

Most Popular

  1. A man walks his dog on a hilltop overlooking San Francisco in the early morning hours on Mount Davidson.
    Equity

    When Millennials Battle Boomers Over Housing

    In Generation Priced Out, Randy Shaw examines how Boomers have blocked affordable housing in urban neighborhoods, leaving Millennial homebuyers in the lurch.

  2. A photo shows the Amazon logo on a building.
    Amazon HQ2

    Amazon’s HQ2 Spectacle Isn’t Just Shameful—It Should Be Illegal

    Each year, local governments spend nearly $100 billion to move headquarters and factories between states. It’s a wasteful exercise that requires a national solution.

  3. A photo of a resident of Community First Village, a tiny-home community for people who were once living in homelessness, outside of Austin, Texas.!
    Design

    Austin's Fix for Homelessness: Tiny Houses, and Lots of Neighbors

    Community First! Village’s model for ending homelessness emphasizes the stabilizing power of social connections.

  4. Life

    Amazon HQ2 Goes to New York City and Northern Virginia

    After Jeff Bezos set off one of the highest-profile bidding wars in modern history, Amazon picked two East Coast cities for its new headquarters. The surprise extra: There's something in it for Nashville, too.

  5. A man walks down the Zeedjik.
    Equity

    How a Dutch Housing Agency Rescued an Amsterdam Street From the Drug Trade

    Frustrated by rampant heroin trade, residents of the street Zeedijk forced a public-private real-estate partnership to protect the street while preventing community displacement.