- Lead
- 21,814
- Total
- 45,460
- vs nation
- R+46.5
- Turnout
- 52.2%
Tom Green County, TX
▦ precinct · ▥ counties · ▢ no spatial detail
President margin by year
Place winner margin
President results by year
2024 turnout 52.2% of 87,795 citizens 18+
- Lead
- 20,074
- Total
- 45,210
- vs nation
- R+48.9
- Turnout
- 52.1%
- Lead
- 18,321
- Total
- 38,479
- vs nation
- R+49.7
- Turnout
- 46.3%
- Lead
- 17,584
- Total
- 36,720
- vs nation
- R+51.7
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 16,204
- Total
- 38,861
- vs nation
- R+49.0
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 19,178
- Total
- 37,417
- vs nation
- R+48.8
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 15,445
- Total
- 34,626
- vs nation
- R+45.1
- Turnout
- —
- Lead
- 6,330
- Total
- 32,808
- vs nation
- R+27.8
- Turnout
- —
Key facts
- 2024 presidential margin
- R+48.0MIT Election Lab
- Population
- 119,5772024 5-year
- Population density
- 79 / sq mi2024 5-year · TIGER/Line
- Land area
- 1,522 sq miTIGER/Line
- Median household income
- $68,3702024 5-year
- White (non-Hispanic)
- 51.4%2024 5-year
- Black
- 3.6%2024 5-year
- Hispanic / Latino
- 40.6%2024 5-year
- Peak Democratic margin
- D+81.6 in 1916MIT Election Lab
- Peak Republican margin
- R+51.3 in 2004MIT Election Lab
- Most similar
- Midland County, TX · twin score 94.1
Turnout and midterm durability
Participation measured against the same-year citizen voting-age population. Audited cycles count total general-election participants — ballots or participating voters, not presidential candidate votes. Cycles before 2016 predate that series and are derived from the certified presidential returns instead; they are marked everywhere they appear and are excluded from the figures below.
- 2024 turnout
- 52.2%45,820 participants ÷ 87,795 CVAP
- 2020→2022 drop-off
- +15.0 ptsVolatile
- Drop-off vs state
- -4.1 ptsPositive means a larger decline than the statewide pattern
- Mechanical 2026
- 37.2%–41.8%Recent-cycle and two-cycle persistence scenarios; not a forecast
Select a presidential cycle to show it on the map and results ledger above.
| Cycle | Participants | CVAP | Turnout | Series | Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45,820 | 87,795 ± 814 | 52.2% | Audited | A/A | |
| 2022Mid | 32,290 | 87,009 ± 946 | 37.1% | Audited | A/A |
| 45,210 | 86,797 ± 787 | 52.1% | Audited | C/A | |
| 2018Mid | 35,024 | 86,276 ± 845 | 40.6% | Audited | A/A |
| 39,562 | 85,429 ± 733 | 46.3% | Audited | A/A | |
| 36,720 | 80,617 | 45.5% | Derived | — | |
| 38,861 | 77,267 | 50.3% | Derived | — | |
| 37,417 | 73,917 extrapolated | 50.6% | Derived | — |
Sources and methods
Audited cycles (2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024) count total general-election participants against the same-year CVAP special tabulation, each cell carrying its own numerator and denominator quality grade. Derived cycles (2004, 2008, 2012) come from the certified presidential returns on this page over the ACS 5-year CVAP series, so they measure presidential votes cast rather than ballots — a floor on participation. Where a derived cycle predates the ACS its denominator is extrapolated rather than read, and says so on its own line below. They are shown for the longer arc and are excluded from the drop-off, excess-drop-off, and 2026 scenario figures above.
- 2024: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 311/228.
- 2022: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 306/183.
- 2020: numerator source 159, denominator source 157; top ticket votes; canonical-complete-contest-floor-v1; allocation share 0.0%; series 152/2.
- 2018: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 297/138.
- 2016: numerator source 158, denominator source 157; total voters participating; eavs-f1a-v1:observed:native; allocation share 0.0%; series 293/111.
- 2012 (derived): Certified presidential returns · ACS 5-year CVAP (B05003); presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count.
- 2008 (derived): Certified presidential returns · ACS 5-year CVAP (B05003); presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count.
- 2004 (derived): Certified presidential returns · extrapolated CVAP denominator; presidential votes cast — a floor on participation, not a ballot count; 2004 predates the ACS, so the denominator is a linear back-extrapolation from the 2008 and 2012 CVAP values, not a read figure.
Interactive election map
One map. Every available contest.
The map and local result cover Tom Green County only. The complete contest result is shown below for comparison.
Tom Green County result
0 precinct units · 0 candidate votes
Show all 9 candidates
Governor contest result
Loading the complete contest result…
Explore precinct resultsSearch, sort, compare years, or export CSV · 35 precincts
Precinct data
Results by precinct
35 precincts · 45,460 votes
Precinct boundaries and identifiers are cycle-specific. This table does not join rows across years without a validated crosswalk.
| Precinct -Precinct 241Precinct 241 | 899 | 3,325 | 32 | 4,256 | 21.1% | 78.1% | R+57.0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Precinct -Precinct 421Precinct 421 | 667 | 1,960 | 35 | 2,662 | 25.1% | 73.6% | R+48.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 319Precinct 319 | 674 | 1,774 | 30 | 2,478 | 27.2% | 71.6% | R+44.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 436Precinct 436 | 773 | 1,650 | 47 | 2,470 | 31.3% | 66.8% | R+35.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 213Precinct 213 | 189 | 2,212 | 16 | 2,417 | 7.8% | 91.5% | R+83.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 230Precinct 230 | 551 | 1,603 | 28 | 2,182 | 25.3% | 73.5% | R+48.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 304Precinct 304 | 502 | 1,456 | 17 | 1,975 | 25.4% | 73.7% | R+48.3 |
| Precinct -Precinct 402Precinct 402 | 677 | 1,226 | 29 | 1,932 | 35.0% | 63.5% | R+28.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 358Precinct 358 | 226 | 1,577 | 10 | 1,813 | 12.5% | 87.0% | R+74.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 215Precinct 215 | 378 | 1,291 | 29 | 1,698 | 22.3% | 76.0% | R+53.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 228Precinct 228 | 496 | 1,159 | 20 | 1,675 | 29.6% | 69.2% | R+39.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 318Precinct 318 | 204 | 1,304 | 9 | 1,517 | 13.4% | 86.0% | R+72.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 146Precinct 146 | 575 | 901 | 21 | 1,497 | 38.4% | 60.2% | R+21.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 424Precinct 424 | 422 | 1,013 | 12 | 1,447 | 29.2% | 70.0% | R+40.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 201Precinct 201 | 439 | 963 | 12 | 1,414 | 31.0% | 68.1% | R+37.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 137Precinct 137 | 564 | 782 | 21 | 1,367 | 41.3% | 57.2% | R+15.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 327Precinct 327 | 406 | 767 | 7 | 1,180 | 34.4% | 65.0% | R+30.6 |
| Precinct -Precinct 422Precinct 422 | 119 | 1,046 | 12 | 1,177 | 10.1% | 88.9% | R+78.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 306Precinct 306 | 321 | 783 | 10 | 1,114 | 28.8% | 70.3% | R+41.5 |
| Precinct -Precinct 348Precinct 348 | 174 | 793 | 2 | 969 | 18.0% | 81.8% | R+63.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 144Precinct 144 | 343 | 520 | 15 | 878 | 39.1% | 59.2% | R+20.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 423Precinct 423 | 90 | 782 | 4 | 876 | 10.3% | 89.3% | R+79.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 106Precinct 106 | 259 | 517 | 4 | 780 | 33.2% | 66.3% | R+33.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 112Precinct 112 | 87 | 640 | 2 | 729 | 11.9% | 87.8% | R+75.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 108Precinct 108 | 65 | 614 | 4 | 683 | 9.5% | 89.9% | R+80.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 107Precinct 107 | 210 | 445 | 13 | 668 | 31.4% | 66.6% | R+35.2 |
| Precinct -Precinct 435Precinct 435 | 200 | 461 | 6 | 667 | 30.0% | 69.1% | R+39.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 434Precinct 434 | 229 | 420 | 9 | 658 | 34.8% | 63.8% | R+29.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 124Precinct 124 | 312 | 306 | 5 | 623 | 50.1% | 49.1% | D+1.0 |
| Precinct -Precinct 420Precinct 420 | 151 | 455 | 6 | 612 | 24.7% | 74.3% | R+49.7 |
| Precinct -Precinct 114Precinct 114 | 211 | 180 | 4 | 395 | 53.4% | 45.6% | D+7.8 |
| Precinct -Precinct 351Precinct 351 | 57 | 227 | 2 | 286 | 19.9% | 79.4% | R+59.4 |
| Precinct -Precinct 308Precinct 308 | 75 | 120 | 0 | 195 | 38.5% | 61.5% | R+23.1 |
| Precinct -Precinct 401Precinct 401 | 36 | 57 | 3 | 96 | 37.5% | 59.4% | R+21.9 |
| Precinct -Precinct 225Precinct 225 | 4 | 70 | 0 | 74 | 5.4% | 94.6% | R+89.2 |
presidential history
Party record book
Tom Green County, TX · the strongest Democratic and Republican presidential performances recorded here, measured three ways.
1904–2024 · 31 presidential cycles
Highest vote share
Largest share of the presidential candidate vote cast here.
Democratic
Woodrow Wilson1916
88.2%
1,243 votes · D+81.6
Runner-up · Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1936 · 87.3%
Republican
George W. Bush2004
75.3%
28,185 votes · R+51.3
Runner-up · Donald Trump, 2024 · 73.5%
Most votes
Largest number of votes cast for the party’s presidential nominee here.
Democratic
Michael Dukakis1988
12,283votes
36.1% of the vote · R+27.0
Runner-up · Joe Biden, 2020 · 12,239 votes
Republican
Donald Trump2024
33,399votes
73.5% of the vote · R+48.0
Runner-up · Donald Trump, 2020 · 32,313 votes
Best relative to the U.S.
This Place’s margin against the national margin in the same election — positive when it leaned toward the party more than the country did.
Democratic
Alton B. Parker1904
+88.6pts D vs U.S.
Place D+69.0 · U.S. R+19.7
Runner-up · James M. Cox, 1920 · +87.3 pts
Republican
Mitt Romney2012
+51.7pts R vs U.S.
Place R+47.9 · U.S. D+3.9
Runner-up · Donald Trump, 2016 · +49.7 pts
Current officeholders
Seats representing Tom Green County, TX. A county elects none of these itself — they are the members for the 1 congressional, 1 state senate and 1 state house districts it falls inside, so parts of the county are represented by different members.
Senate and governor results are in the Office selector at the top of this page.
U.S. House
Each row shows U.S. House votes counted inside this Place. “Vote lead” is the local lead here, not necessarily the winner of the full contest.
Registered voters
Total registered voters, over time
| Year | Total registered |
|---|---|
| 2016 | 64,614 |
| 2018 | 66,823 |
| 2020 | 70,086 |
| 2022 | 70,922 |
| 2024 | 72,586 |
Who moves in and out
Net migration over time, and who arrivals are — where they came from and what those places vote
−61 net domestic migration · 2025
Net +2,087 over 2011–2025 · gain loss
Arrivals reported $58,143 in average income, against $88,276 for residents who stayed — 34% lower. (IRS SOI, 2022–23)
The places arrivals came from lean R+25.5 on average — 22 points more Democratic-leaning than Tom Green County, TX itself (R+48.0).
Where arrivals came from lean of each source
- Bexar County, TX122D+9.7
- Midland County, TX93R+60.5
- Runnels County, TX90R+77.1
- Tarrant County, TX85R+5.1
- Taylor County, TX81R+49.8
- Travis County, TX66D+39.3
Where departures went households, 2022–23
- Bexar County, TX215
- Tarrant County, TX115
- Taylor County, TX100
- Midland County, TX98
- Runnels County, TX76
- Lubbock County, TX74
Migration is one input to a place’s political change, not its cause — a shift can also come from residents changing their minds, generational turnover, or turnout. These figures describe the places people moved between; they do not measure how any mover voted.
| Year | Net domestic migration |
|---|---|
| 2011 | +478 |
| 2012 | +758 |
| 2013 | +722 |
| 2014 | +1,082 |
| 2015 | +423 |
| 2016 | −547 |
| 2017 | −494 |
| 2018 | +129 |
| 2019 | +802 |
| 2021 | −897 |
| 2022 | −490 |
| 2023 | −109 |
| 2024 | +291 |
| 2025 | −61 |
Tom Green County, home to San Angelo, delivers some of Texas's most lopsided statewide margins, with its oil-patch economy and sparse rural precincts reinforcing a Republican baseline that has held firm across multiple election cycles.
Across the recorded series it reached a Democratic high of 81.6 points in 1916 and a Republican high of 51.3 points in 2004. Between 2020 and 2024 the county moved 3.6 points toward the Republican candidate; the 2024 margin was 48.0 points.
A population of 119,577, a 51% non-Hispanic-white share, and a median household income of $68,370 describe the county. The county's voting pattern over the last decade is most similar to that of Midland County and Hockley County.
The counties whose fingerprint — 2000–2024 trajectory, demographics, ancestry, religion — sits closest to this one, and why.
Twin score (0–100) = weighted cosine between tier-standardized fingerprints: presidential margins 2000–2024 with 12-yr trend and elasticity, ACS income, age, education, population and race, top reported ancestries, and religious adherence — chips name the closest-shared dimensions and the widest gap. Re-weight the groups in the twins explorer.
Browse places by community — income, education, race & ethnicity, language — all community cuts →
Compare two places, side by side
Twelve curated comparisons line up election history, demographics, and the divergence story for two places at a glance. Browse all comparisons →
Tom Green County, Texas. Akashic. https://akashic.app/county/48451/. Accessed May 20, 2026. License: CC BY 4.0.