Much has been buried, at least metaphorically, about how American politics has been nationalized to an unprecedented extent. Now people are even choosing to move for political reasons, making sharp regional differences even more relevant, one reason candidates are spending their money and energy in only a handful of states.

This was not the case back when many states, even my adopted hometown of California, had a vibrant two-party system. Today, most regions are increasingly monolithic as people tend to move to states that are compatible with their ideological leanings. 40 states now have “trifecta” status with one-party control of all branches of government; in 2008 there were around 20.

In the past, Democrats have won elections, even at the presidential level, in the South, the current Republican base, and in states like Utah and Montana. After all, both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton came from Dixie and also had some congressional allies with similar sentiments. Today, the number of moderate—and politically savvy—Democrats in the South has virtually dwindled to a handful.

The Democrats' base is now on the even more politically homogeneous West Coast and the Northeast. Other than Larry Hogan of Maryland, there is not a single prominent Republican in either region; In all of these states, the congressional delegation tends to be overwhelmingly Democratic. The rise of Donald Trump appears to have accelerated the pace of change, wiping out the last vestiges of moderate East Coast-style Republicanism.

In New York, California and Illinois, the three major Democratic states, Kamala Harris is up by up to 20 points and never less than 15 points. At the same time, Trump is ahead in the two big GOP states – Texas and Florida – by comfortable, if narrower, margins.

This regional divide is not exactly healthy for the overall unity of the country. Above all, it reflects the long-standing conflict between established elites and would-be challengers, who are often less cultivated. As the Arab historian Ibn Khaldun noted, there are always conflicts between harsher, more aggressive forces on the margins and sedentary peoples living in urban centers.

In this view, regions like the South, mountain states like Utah and Arizona are all involved in the attempt to destroy the historically rich areas of the Northeast and California. Although all elite states suffer from rising inequality, on average they remain the wealthiest and contain the most expensive neighborhoods. Massive wealth creation is important and brings enormous benefits, both politically and socially.

But the nomads explore the walled citadel. The fastest job growth, including in manufacturing and business services, was primarily seen in places like Austin, Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix and Salt Lake City. This year, the hotspots for salary growth are almost entirely in red states.

The momentum is increasing. Last year, the Deep South, Texas and the desert Southwest saw the biggest uptick in new business creation, while the economies of New York and the West Coast lagged behind. Texas and Florida are now the country's fastest-growing hotspots and also attract the most tech workers, while Dallas is looking to overtake Chicago as a financial center and also take on Wall Street.

The demographic changes are even more critical. Last year, all five of the fastest growing cities were in the South or Nevada. People are moving decisively to lower-cost and generally less dense regions not only in the southeast but also in the western interior. Since 2000, Florida, Texas, Arizona, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Nevada have been the biggest winners in domestic migration.

Other groups, such as wealthy young professionals, minorities, immigrants and, perhaps most critically, families, are also migrating to the red bastions. Birth rates tend to be higher in the reddest areas and lowest in the deepest blue.

At the same time, there is also an exodus of older, wealthier immigrants from the North and California to states with lower taxes and lower costs. This is massively to the financial advantage of states like Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Florida and Texas, as well as Tennessee and the Carolinas, all of which will receive billions of dollars in capital through these transfers.

Between 2019 and 2023, there was a shift of around $191 billion from blue to red states. Among the losers is Tim Walz's Minnesota, where the political agenda mimics California, but under much less favorable conditions. It has lost $5 billion from residents fleeing as its workforce has shrunk.

Of course, it may take some time for these changes to take hold. After the last census, Texas gained two House seats, Florida, Montana and North Carolina – as well as blue-leaning Oregon and Colorado – gained one, while New York, California and Illinois all lost seats and electoral votes. If current trends continue, red states will have 30 more seats in 2030 than they did in the 1970s. Arizona and Georgia, normally red-leaning states, are expected to gain, as are the deep red Carolinas, Tennessee, Utah and Idaho.

None of this means Trump will win this time. A coalition of elite states with enough Rust Belt places and perhaps younger suburban voters could outperform Harris. But even so, it seems unlikely that she will become another Abraham Lincoln, who reshaped the United States, but rather a modern James Buchanan, the hapless Democrat who did little to stop secession and earn a place in the hall of forgotten presidents earned.

Until the Democrats learn to win in the emerging states, they will continue to fight against history and, like the long-dead Federalists, resort to being the snooty opponents of the emerging states. The American future will increasingly lie in red states, and this will be the key area that Democrats must attack if they do not want to be forgotten.

Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute at the University of Texas