In the first article of this series, we examined the most significant demographic categories influencing how Americans vote. We treated these categories like the pillars of a structure: each strong, each carrying its own weight, each standing alone for analysis.
But a building doesn’t gain strength from pillars alone. It requires crossbeams—points of intersection where separate supports combine to form a stronger frame. Likewise, the true complexity of political behavior emerges not just from the categories themselves, but from how they overlap.
A person’s political behavior is rarely shaped by just one category. Instead, it emerges from the intersection of many categories—location with education, race with religious devotion, marital status with income, and so forth. This is not “intersectionality” in the ideological sense promoted by Critical Theory, which treats certain identities as inherently virtuous or oppressive. Rather, it is the practical, observational reality that when categories overlap, voting tendencies often become more predictable.
Before we identify and explore the most critical intersections, it’s worth pausing to understand how campaigns and election analysts use these combinations in real-world political strategy.
How Campaigns and Analysts Use Intersections
Political campaigns are in the business of winning elections, not writing academic papers. Their interest in demographics is deeply practical: they want to know who is likely to support them, where those people live, how they can be reached, and what messages will motivate them to turn out.
Election analysts and campaign data teams use voter files—massive databases combining publicly available registration and turnout records with consumer data, polling, and modeled estimates of issue preferences. The most sophisticated operations organize this data in a way that’s conceptually similar to a multidimensional cube in business analytics. Instead of sales figures by product, region, and quarter, they are looking at political behavior by race, income, education, religion, age, and other categories.
Here’s how intersections come into play:
- Predictive Modeling
Campaigns feed historical voting data and polling responses into statistical models to predict the likelihood that a person in a given intersection will vote, and if so, for which candidate. - Message Targeting
A suburban, college-educated, married white woman in her 40s might receive ads focused on school choice and public safety. A young, urban, unmarried Hispanic man might see messages about wage growth, housing costs, or police reform. - Resource Allocation
Intersections reveal where persuasion is possible versus where turnout is the main challenge. For example, a solidly Republican rural county with low turnout among veterans might get a “get out the vote” push rather than expensive persuasion ads. - Microtargeting at Scale
By understanding intersections, campaigns can identify “archetypes” like “NASCAR dads,” “soccer moms,” “boomerang kids,” or “second-generation strivers,” and speak directly to their concerns.
In short, intersections are where the art and science of political persuasion meet. The better a campaign understands them, the more efficiently it can spend its time and money.
Critical Intersections and Their Voting Characteristics
From our 18 pillars, dozens—perhaps hundreds—of possible intersections emerge. Here we focus on some of the most politically consequential combinations, both for understanding current voting patterns and for anticipating future shifts.
1. Race × Education
Perhaps the most consistently revealing intersection in modern American politics is the combination of race and education level.
White College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Increasingly Democratic, especially women.
- Why: College education often aligns with cultural liberalism, urban/suburban living, and professional-class concerns. The GOP’s populist turn has alienated many in this group.
White Non-College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
- Why: This group forms the core of the modern GOP base, attracted by cultural conservatism, economic nationalism, and skepticism toward progressive social change.
Black College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic, though more moderate on some economic issues.
- Why: Party loyalty rooted in civil rights history combines with social liberalism reinforced by higher education.
Black Non-College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Also strongly Democratic, but sometimes more socially conservative than their college-educated peers.
- Note: Black men without degrees have shown small but significant movement toward Republicans in recent cycles.
Hispanic and Asian Voters by Education
- College-educated members of these groups tend to be Democratic, but non-college members are more competitive and in some cases lean Republican, especially men.
Strategic Value: Race × Education intersections often tell campaigns whether they face a persuasion battle or simply a turnout challenge.
2. Religion × Race
Religious affiliation alone predicts a great deal, but when combined with race, the picture sharpens.
White Evangelicals
- Tendency: Overwhelmingly Republican.
- Notes: This group punches above its weight in turnout, especially in Southern and rural states.
Black Protestants
- Tendency: Reliably Democratic.
- Why: Cultural conservatism exists on some issues, but historical and contemporary racial politics keep partisan loyalty strong.
Latino Catholics
- Tendency: Historically Democratic, but trending more Republican among men.
- Why: Conservative social values clash with Democratic social policies, even as immigration policy and economic programs still attract many.
Asian Christians and Other Faiths
- Tendency: Often Democratic, but certain subgroups (e.g., Vietnamese Catholics, Korean Presbyterians) lean Republican.
Strategic Value: Religion × Race intersections highlight communities where outreach on moral and cultural issues can move votes.
3. Marital Status × Sex
Marriage changes voting tendencies—dramatically—when combined with gender.
Married Men
- Tendency: Solidly Republican.
- Why: Strong association with economic conservatism, traditional family roles, and higher rates of religious observance.
Married Women
- Tendency: Lean Republican, though suburban college-educated married women are often swing voters.
- Why: Safety, education policy, and economic stability are key motivators.
Unmarried Women
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: More likely to prioritize social welfare, abortion access, and progressive social policies.
Unmarried Men
- Tendency: Democratic-leaning, but more variable by race and education.
Strategic Value: This intersection is especially important in suburbs and swing districts.
4. Age × Race
Generational divides look different when viewed through the lens of race.
Young White Voters
- Tendency: Lean Democratic, but less so than young minority voters.
- Trend: More open to right-leaning populism on issues like free speech and crime.
Young Black and Hispanic Voters
- Tendency: Still Democratic, but with measurable shifts toward Republicans, especially among men.
- Why: Cultural issues, economic opportunity, and dissatisfaction with political establishment.
Older Minority Voters
- Tendency: More loyal to Democrats than younger counterparts, often shaped by formative experiences in the civil rights era.
Strategic Value: Age × Race helps campaigns identify generational transition points where partisan loyalty is weakening.
5. Location × Education
Geography plus education often produces stark divides.
Urban College Graduates
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Urban density, progressive culture, high exposure to liberal institutions.
Rural Non-College Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
- Why: Economic conservatism, cultural traditionalism, suspicion of elite institutions.
Suburban College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Swing group, though trending Democratic in recent years.
- Why: Balancing economic pragmatism with cultural liberalism.
Strategic Value: This is the bread-and-butter targeting set for competitive House and Senate races.
6. Income × Religion
Income moderates religious voting patterns.
High-Income Evangelicals
- Tendency: Republican, but more libertarian on economics.
Low-Income Evangelicals
- Tendency: Republican, more populist on economics.
High-Income Seculars
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
Low-Income Seculars
- Tendency: Overwhelmingly Democratic, driven by economic and social welfare concerns.
Strategic Value: Income × Religion shows where economic appeals might cross partisan lines.
7. Race × Income
Income levels do not erase racial voting patterns, but they do create distinct subgroups with different political tendencies.
High-Income White Voters
- Tendency: Split by education—college-educated tend Democratic, non-college lean Republican.
- Why: Cultural alignment often trumps economic self-interest.
Low-Income White Voters
- Tendency: Now solidly Republican in most rural and small-town areas.
- Why: Populist appeals and distrust of liberal cultural politics outweigh traditional Democratic economic messaging.
High-Income Minority Voters
- Tendency: Still majority Democratic, though slightly more open to Republican candidates.
- Why: Cultural loyalty to Democrats persists, but GOP economic policies can resonate.
Low-Income Minority Voters
- Tendency: Heavily Democratic.
- Why: Reliance on social safety nets, party identification, and community norms.
Strategic Value: Race × Income is a targeting tool for economic messaging—especially when trying to flip upwardly mobile minority voters or appeal to economically anxious white voters.
8. Age × Education
Education divides widen when layered over generational lines.
Young College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Campus culture, progressive socialization, and high exposure to liberal media.
Young Non-College Voters
- Tendency: Still lean Democratic but with greater Republican inroads, especially among men.
- Why: Frustration with economic stagnation and cultural liberalism.
Older College-Educated Voters
- Tendency: Split—many suburban moderates here are swing voters.
- Why: Balancing socially liberal views with fiscal caution.
Older Non-College Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
- Why: Loyalty to traditional values, skepticism of progressive change.
Strategic Value: This intersection helps campaigns decide whether to invest in persuasion (college-educated moderates) or turnout (young non-college conservatives).
9. Location × Race
Geographic distribution of racial groups shapes partisan competition.
Urban Minority Voters
- Tendency: Heavily Democratic.
- Why: Dense communities, historical party loyalty, and urban policy priorities.
Suburban Minority Voters
- Tendency: Democratic but less so than urban peers.
- Why: Suburban integration leads to greater diversity of political views.
Rural Minority Voters
- Tendency: More politically mixed; some lean Republican.
- Why: Shared cultural conservatism with rural whites can override racial partisan trends.
Strategic Value: Location × Race reveals pockets of minority voters open to GOP outreach.
10. Religion × Education
Religious commitment interacts powerfully with educational attainment.
Highly Educated Devout Believers
- Tendency: Often Republican, though more nuanced on policy.
- Why: Faith identity overrides progressive socialization.
Highly Educated Nominal Believers
- Tendency: Democratic.
- Why: Cultural alignment with secular liberal norms.
Less Educated Devout Believers
- Tendency: Republican.
- Why: Traditionalism and communal religious life reinforce conservative politics.
Strategic Value: This intersection helps refine religious outreach—different tones work for Ivy League evangelicals versus blue-collar churchgoers.
11. Sex × Education
Gender and education together produce some of the starkest divides.
College-Educated Women
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic, especially unmarried.
- Why: Progressive cultural norms and gender politics.
Non-College Women
- Tendency: More Republican, especially married or religious.
- Why: Stronger alignment with traditional values.
College-Educated Men
- Tendency: Politically mixed; lean Democrat in metro areas.
- Why: Balancing fiscal pragmatism with moderate social liberalism.
Non-College Men
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
- Why: Economic populism and anti-elitism.
Strategic Value: Campaigns can micro-target educational messages to gender-specific life experiences.
12. Marital Status × Age
Age changes the meaning of marital status in political behavior.
Young Married Couples
- Tendency: More conservative than their single peers.
- Why: Early investment in family stability.
Older Married Couples
- Tendency: Republican-leaning, especially in rural and suburban areas.
- Why: Retirement security, law and order.
Young Singles
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Progressive cultural norms, urban lifestyles.
Older Singles
- Tendency: Politically mixed—divorcees may lean Republican; widows more Democratic.
Strategic Value: Marital Status × Age helps in targeting family-oriented policy appeals.
13. Race × Media Consumption
Media choices can amplify or weaken racial voting tendencies.
Minority Fox News Consumers
- Tendency: Far more Republican than racial averages.
- Why: Self-selection into conservative messaging.
White MSNBC/NPR Consumers
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Cultural affinity with progressive narratives.
Strategic Value: Identifies persuasion opportunities through media crossovers.
14. Region × Religion
Regional culture shapes how religion translates into politics.
Southern Evangelicals
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
Northeastern Catholics
- Tendency: More Democratic.
Western Mormons
- Tendency: Republican, but with unique policy priorities (family, religious liberty).
Strategic Value: Prevents one-size-fits-all religious outreach.
15. Veteran Status × Race
Service experience and racial identity combine in unique ways.
White Veterans
- Tendency: Republican.
Black Veterans
- Tendency: More moderate than general Black population.
Hispanic Veterans
- Tendency: Politically diverse; service experience can increase GOP openness.
Strategic Value: Highlights patriotism-based outreach potential.
16. Parent Status × Education
Parental responsibilities often magnify political differences created by education.
College-Educated Parents
- Tendency: Split—many suburban parents lean Democrat, but school choice and curriculum debates can shift them toward Republicans.
- Why: High involvement in education makes them sensitive to school policy.
Non-College-Educated Parents
- Tendency: More Republican, especially in rural and working-class communities.
- Why: Emphasis on traditional values, safety, and economic opportunity.
College-Educated Non-Parents
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Less tied to local schools and more oriented toward global or social issues.
Non-College-Educated Non-Parents
- Tendency: Politically mixed, leaning Republican among men.
Strategic Value: Parent Status × Education is critical for school-related campaign messaging.
17. Homeownership × Age
Owning property tends to shift political preferences over time, especially when combined with age.
Young Homeowners
- Tendency: More conservative than young renters, but still left-leaning compared to older homeowners.
- Why: Emerging awareness of taxes, zoning, and property values.
Older Homeowners
- Tendency: Republican-leaning.
- Why: Protection of investments, lower crime, and community stability.
Young Renters
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
- Why: Mobility, progressive social environment, economic insecurity.
Older Renters
- Tendency: Mixed—low-income renters often Democratic; higher-income urban renters may be swing voters.
Strategic Value: Homeownership × Age is a marker for tax and housing policy appeals.
18. Criminal Justice Views × Race
Attitudes toward law enforcement differ sharply within racial groups and can create cross-cutting coalitions.
White Pro-Police Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Republican.
White Reform-Oriented Voters
- Tendency: Democratic.
Black Pro-Police Voters
- Tendency: More moderate—Republican-curious on crime, but still often Democratic overall.
Minority Reform-Oriented Voters
- Tendency: Strongly Democratic.
Strategic Value: Criminal Justice Views × Race helps pinpoint law-and-order vs. reform-oriented messaging opportunities.
19. Media Consumption × Age
Generational media habits deeply affect how voters engage politically.
Older Cable News Viewers
- Tendency: Republican if Fox News, Democratic if MSNBC/CNN.
Younger Social Media–Dominant Consumers
- Tendency: Democratic, highly responsive to viral activism.
Podcast and Independent Media Consumers
- Tendency: More politically diverse, often anti-establishment.
Strategic Value: Media × Age guides ad placement and influencer outreach.
20. Geographic Region × Education
Educational attainment alters traditional regional patterns.
College-Educated Southerners
- Tendency: Less Republican than regional average.
Non-College Northeasterners
- Tendency: More Republican than regional average.
College-Educated Midwesterners
- Tendency: Often swing voters, crucial in battleground states.
Strategic Value: Region × Education helps refine battleground targeting.
Conclusion: The Power and Peril of Political Crossroads
The first article in this series laid the foundation—eighteen demographic pillars that define the American electorate. In this second installment, we have seen how those pillars intersect, producing combinations that reveal more than any single demographic alone.
Campaigns don’t just chase “women voters” or “Hispanic voters” anymore. They chase college-educated suburban mothers, working-class rural Black men, second-generation Asian-American entrepreneurs, and other finely sliced archetypes. At these intersections, political tendencies solidify, swing potential emerges, and targeted messaging becomes both more effective and more efficient.
Yet there is a cautionary note. Overreliance on intersections can lead to seeing voters as categories instead of individuals. It can tempt strategists into assuming immutable loyalty—or permanent hostility—based on identity alone. That’s the flaw in ideological intersectionality: it ascribes moral or political worth based on group status, rather than on the dignity and agency of the person.
The Christian worldview, as well as a healthy democratic ethic, demands more. While understanding these intersections is vital for political strategy, it should never blind us to the truth that each voter is more than the sum of their categories.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
I use words that reflect the “woke” culture and their re-definitions sometimes. It is hard to communicate effectively without using their twisted vocabulary. Rest assured that I do not believe gender ideology or “Progressivism”. Words and phrases like “trans man”, “trans women” , “transgender”, “transition” or similar words and phrases are nonsensical and reflect a distorted, imaginary worldview where men can become women and vice-versa. The word “Progressive” itself is a propagandistic word that implies the Progressives are the positive force in society, whereas in reality their cultic belief system is very corrosive to mankind.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at christiannewsjunkie@gmail.com if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.