On wealthy rural places: rural gentrification, exurbia, and politics

A few days ago, Philip Bump of the Washington Post published a piece titled "Where Rural America Defies Economic Stereotypes."  It's one of those cool data-driven pieces with several graphs (and one map) that illustrate where the nation's more affluent rural counties are.  The long and short of it is that wealthier rural counties tend to be those experiencing rural gentrification, either because they are amenity rich (think Colorado's Western slope); exurban and therefore reliant on metropolitan jobs; or because of the energy boom in western North Dakota's Bakken formation or Texas's Permian Basin. 

The map accompanying Bump's story highlights 24 counties with higher median incomes than the national average median income.  Among the surprises for me:  Alpine County, California (population 1,175) in the Eastern Sierra and McMullen County, Texas (population 707).  I know Alpine County is scenic, but I'm having trouble imagining the source of wealth in McMullen County, perhaps wealthy farmers with large holdings. 

Bump then turns to the politics of these counties: 

These 24 counties uphold one stereotype, though: All but three voted for President Trump in 2016. On average, the counties on the map above backed Trump by 48 points. (The three exceptions? Alpine County in California, San Juan County in Washington and San Miguel County in Colorado.)

I've already mentioned Alpine County's economy.  San Miguel County, Colorado (population 7,359) is home to Telluride, an extreme example of rural gentrification which I have written about here and here.  San Juan County, Washington is San Juan Island, population 15,769.  All are natural amenity-driven economies.