So how exactly did Bush lose the suburbs in 1992?

[old timey villain]

1992 was the start of a realignment in the suburbs. Before 1992, many suburban areas in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast were pretty darn Republican. However, in this elections scores of them became battleground regions or Democratic turf and haven't looked back since. In the 20 years since, Republicans have had a very tough time winning states like Illinois, New York, California, Connecticut and New Jersey (among others) partly because they just can't perform in the suburbs like they used to.
 

So what did Bush do to piss off these folks? Was it his hard turn to the right on social issues? Tell me what you think

EDIT: It's entirely possible that Democrats have gained ground in these regions since 92 simply because they have become much more diverse. I'm just talking about 1992 though. Clearly there were a lot of people in these places voting for Bush in 1988 and then switching to Clinton in 1992.

[old timey villain]

You guys made some good points. I think the Cold War angle is a good one. The threat of communism provided a big tent that united all factions of the Republican party, but once the USSR collapsed they realized they weren't on the same page on every issue and the coalition fractured.  Bush decided to make his campaign a referendum on social issues and American values which probably helped him hold down some southern states while his support collapsed in other areas.

I wonder- If Bush decided to focus more on things like taxes and smaller government while avoiding the culture wars, would the map have looked different? Maybe he would have held onto states like New Jersey, Connecticut and New Hampshire with Clinton doing even better in the south and rust belt.

By the way- I think 1996 was the true realignment for many of those suburban counties as a lot of them were still won by Bush in 1992 and then won easily by Clinton in 1996, like Bergen NJ, Oakland MI and Fairfield CT.