How can the GOP win back suburbia?

[CJK]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

[Bo]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

[nclib]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

Also, many suburban voters who voted for gay marriage bans, aren't as fanatically anti-gay as the GOP establishment.

[Bo]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

Also, many suburban voters who voted for gay marriage bans, aren't as fanatically anti-gay as the GOP establishment.

As a Democrat, I can proudly say that most of the GOP establishment is not fanatically anti-gay. Even most of the GOP establishment that opposes gay marriage does not speak badly of gay people themselves.

[nclib]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

Also, many suburban voters who voted for gay marriage bans, aren't as fanatically anti-gay as the GOP establishment.

As a Democrat, I can proudly say that most of the GOP establishment is not fanatically anti-gay. Even most of the GOP establishment that opposes gay marriage does not speak badly of gay people themselves.

Allright. But the point is that some voters could have voted for a gay marriage ban, but still not like the GOP's hardline social conservatism and rhetoric.

[Bo]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

Also, many suburban voters who voted for gay marriage bans, aren't as fanatically anti-gay as the GOP establishment.

As a Democrat, I can proudly say that most of the GOP establishment is not fanatically anti-gay. Even most of the GOP establishment that opposes gay marriage does not speak badly of gay people themselves.

Allright. But the point is that some voters could have voted for a gay marriage ban, but still not like the GOP's hardline social conservatism and rhetoric.

Still, I don't think many non-gay voters use gay rights issues as a decisive issue to determine who they're going to vote for.

[CJK]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

That's flatly untrue: 59% of suburban Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 as well as 63% of Ohio suburban voters in 2004.

[Bo]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

That's flatly untrue: 59% of suburban Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 as well as 63% of Ohio suburban voters in 2004.

Many of those other 41% and 37%, respectively, were turned off by the GOP's rhetoric on various social issues. It's not just about gay marriage--many suburban voters who support abortion vote against the GOP when the GOP places large emphasis on the issue.

[live free or die]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

That's flatly untrue: 59% of suburban Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 as well as 63% of Ohio suburban voters in 2004.

But...

In a choice between two pro-gay marriage candidates, the Republican will still get the anti-gay marriage Republicans and have a better shot with pro-gay marriage Republicans/Independents/Democrats even.

In a choice between a pro- and anti-gay marriage candidate, many voters will not even consider the anti-gay marriage candidate.

[Jensen]

Another problem is the lack of concern for important suburban issues like the environment and education.

[Bo]

Another problem is the lack of concern for important suburban issues like the environment and education.

Exactly. The GOP needs to talk about important issues to suburban residents when they are campaigning there.

[Jensen]

VT isn't very suburban, however. We are very rural. The GOP just went South and really hurt itself up North here. I wish we could get in a candidate we could return the GOP to its roots. I think Jim Douglas would make a great President if he would run. He could probably perform well in suburbs.

[Bo]

VT isn't very suburban, however. We are very rural. The GOP just went South and really hurt itself up North here. I wish we could get in a candidate we could return the GOP to its roots. I think Jim Douglas would make a great President if he would run. He could probably perform well in suburbs.

Is he economically moderate/liberal? And by asking this question, I mean liberal as in an American sense, not in a classical 19th century sense.

[Jensen]

VT isn't very suburban, however. We are very rural. The GOP just went South and really hurt itself up North here. I wish we could get in a candidate we could return the GOP to its roots. I think Jim Douglas would make a great President if he would run. He could probably perform well in suburbs.

Is he economically moderate/liberal? And by asking this question, I mean liberal as in an American sense, not in a classical 19th century sense.

He is fairly moderate, I'd say. He supports expanding health care coverage and environmental protections. At the same time, he did lower property taxes here and generally supports effective government rather than big or small government.

[Zarn]

VT isn't very suburban, however. We are very rural. The GOP just went South and really hurt itself up North here. I wish we could get in a candidate we could return the GOP to its roots. I think Jim Douglas would make a great President if he would run. He could probably perform well in suburbs.

Is he economically moderate/liberal? And by asking this question, I mean liberal as in an American sense, not in a classical 19th century sense.

A fiscal/ economic leftward march is a death sentence to the GOP.

[CJK]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

That's flatly untrue: 59% of suburban Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 as well as 63% of Ohio suburban voters in 2004.

Many of those other 41% and 37%, respectively, were turned off by the GOP's rhetoric on various social issues. It's not just about gay marriage--many suburban voters who support abortion vote against the GOP when the GOP places large emphasis on the issue.

Why abandon the 59% to get the 41%? And why is abortion relevant when it has not been an emphasis in many years and growing numbers of people are opposing it?

The idea that suburban voters favor gay marriage and abortion out of proportion to the total population is pure fantasy.

[Jensen]

VT isn't very suburban, however. We are very rural. The GOP just went South and really hurt itself up North here. I wish we could get in a candidate we could return the GOP to its roots. I think Jim Douglas would make a great President if he would run. He could probably perform well in suburbs.

Is he economically moderate/liberal? And by asking this question, I mean liberal as in an American sense, not in a classical 19th century sense.

A fiscal/ economic leftward march is a death sentence to the GOP.

I tend to agree.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Isn't the Republican Party losing ground in suburbia simply because suburbia is becoming more urban as opposed to more exurban/rural? That's what I think at least. I think many suburban voters are more conservative on fiscal issues than urban voters but more moderate-to-liberal on social issues than rural voters. The Southernization and takeover of the Republican Party by the right-wing evangelical fanatics has probably hurt the GOP in suburbia as well. I think in most suburbs you have to be pretty moderate/pragmatic on a lot of issues, and the national Republican Party has been in a purging process lately of moderates from the party, so I think this image the GOP has acquired as a conservative-only party has probably turned off a lot of voters in suburbia who don't necessarily vote with their Bibles and instead vote with their checkbooks.

At the same time, I find it hard to believe that the SUV-driving soccer moms in suburbia don't like Republicans simply because of their emphasis on "family values." In fact, I would think they WOULD like them because of this. I don't necessarily think it's abortion and gay rights that are hurting Republicans in suburbia itself. However, you have a Republican Party that is defined and owned by the social conservatives in the party who make it all about wedge/cultural issues. Maybe voters in suburbia want to hear candidates talk about more important things like public transportation, bringing more jobs to suburbia, making college education more accessible for their children, etc., and you don't hear Republicans talking much about those issues, so perhaps that's the reason. But you can't take my word for it - I live in the "pro-America" sticks (literally) in Southeast Missouri.

That being said, there are some suburbs in the Midwest that are still strongly Republican - the Indianapolis and Milwaukee 'burbs come to mind, at least. I think McCain still got in the 60-percent margins in these places.

To clarify, I think it's the national image the Party of No [Moderates] has acquired that is hurting them in suburbia as opposed to their message.

[Smash255]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

How can you assert that they "turn off" voters when all the gay marriage bans put on the ballot have passed?

They turn off voters in suburbia, not necessarily in other parts of the states (such as rural areas).

That's flatly untrue: 59% of suburban Californians voted against gay marriage in 2008 as well as 63% of Ohio suburban voters in 2004.

Many of those other 41% and 37%, respectively, were turned off by the GOP's rhetoric on various social issues. It's not just about gay marriage--many suburban voters who support abortion vote against the GOP when the GOP places large emphasis on the issue.

Why abandon the 59% to get the 41%? And why is abortion relevant when it has not been an emphasis in many years and growing numbers of people are opposing it?

The idea that suburban voters favor gay marriage and abortion out of proportion to the total population is pure fantasy.

Actually growing numbers of people are supporting it.  We also aren't talking about the suburban areas that are still Republican, we are talking about the suburban areas that were Republican.  The southern Evangelical takeover of the GOP has hurt the Party here on Long Island, it has hurt them in Westchester, suburban Philly, Northern Virginia, suburban Denver.  These were all once solidly Republican areas, they aren't anymore, and a key reason is social conservatism,  trying to shove religion down the throats of everyone hurts the GOP.  So does the idea that Gay marriage is some huge threat.  Even those who might not agree with Gay marriage and would vote against it on the ballot, are turned off by the gays are evil idea put forth by many in the GOP.  Not to mention the hostility many in the GOP have to education and intellectualism, that simply won't fly on Long Island, Montgomery PA, Fairfax & Loudon VA, Jefferson & Araphoe CO, and the others

[CJK]

The "evangelical takeover" of the GOP occured back in the 1980s when Republicans were doing quite well.

There's simply no proof to support your contention that social conservatism costs Republicans votes. Indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite. As I stated earlier, gay marriage bans passed by landslide proportions in the suburbs.

[true liberty]

give up prehistoric social debates.

[Smash255]

The "evangelical takeover" of the GOP occured back in the 1980s when Republicans were doing quite well.

There's simply no proof to support your contention that social conservatism costs Republicans votes. Indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite. As I stated earlier, gay marriage bans passed by landslide proportions in the suburbs.

They took it to another level during the 90's and during the Bush administration.   The total lack of anything moderate in the Republican Party is only a fairly recent development.  As far as the gay marriage bans that passed in the suburbs, how many of those suburbs are Republican??  You also have some of those who may not personally agree with Gay marriage and may even vote to ban it in their own state, but think its insane to have a FMA.  Also isn't the point of this thread to discuss what has happened to the GOP in suburban areas that use to be GOP that are no longer GOP??  not suburban areas that still are GOP??

 Fact of the matter is shoving religion down everyones throat and harping on social conservative issues important to southern Evangelicals have deeply hurt the GOP in many suburban areas which use to make up the old base of the GOP.   Banning abortion, banning and bashing Gay marriage, bashing the repeal of DADT (bashing gays themselves) trying to shove religion into schools via creationism, sure as hell isn't the way for the GOP to get back suburban voters that they have lost in areas they use to dominate.  Its not going to work here on Long Island, nor in Westchester, same in suburban Philly, as well as in Northern Virginia,not to mention suburban Denver, etc..

[All Along The Watchtower]

The GOP is doing even worse in suburbs that are of mixed ethnic groups. I live in a heavily Asian suburb of San Jose, CA. Most of these people are Democrats, and they are turned off by the xenophobia of many American conservatives.

I think we're seeing the logical downfall of the Southern Strategy as population growth shifts to more Democratic areas.

[DS0816]

We used to kill democrats in the suburbs and over the last 20 years, we've slowly lost them.  The platform of the party has changed unfortunately and while it may have helped us in the south to some extent, in the midwest, west coach and northeast, it's really hurt.

IL, PA, VT, NH, ME, CT, NJ, DE, MI, WA, OR and CA used to be our states.  Why?  We would lose the big cities, but would overwhelm the democrats in the suburbs.  The 1988 election is a good example of that.  Bush's small wins in PA, IL and CA were due to his overwhelming margins in the suburbs.

How can we win that voting block back? 

Being a Long Islander, I've seen it change from solidly red (social moderates and economic conservatives) to solidly blue over the past 15-20 years.  It's been the trend in other states I've mentioned too.

Are you saying that the Republican Party has regrets?

[TeePee4Prez]

The "evangelical takeover" of the GOP occured back in the 1980s when Republicans were doing quite well.

There's simply no proof to support your contention that social conservatism costs Republicans votes. Indeed, the evidence suggests the opposite. As I stated earlier, gay marriage bans passed by landslide proportions in the suburbs.

They took it to another level during the 90's and during the Bush administration.   The total lack of anything moderate in the Republican Party is only a fairly recent development.  As far as the gay marriage bans that passed in the suburbs, how many of those suburbs are Republican??  You also have some of those who may not personally agree with Gay marriage and may even vote to ban it in their own state, but think its insane to have a FMA.  Also isn't the point of this thread to discuss what has happened to the GOP in suburban areas that use to be GOP that are no longer GOP??  not suburban areas that still are GOP??

 Fact of the matter is shoving religion down everyones throat and harping on social conservative issues important to southern Evangelicals have deeply hurt the GOP in many suburban areas which use to make up the old base of the GOP.   Banning abortion, banning and bashing Gay marriage, bashing the repeal of DADT (bashing gays themselves) trying to shove religion into schools via creationism, sure as hell isn't the way for the GOP to get back suburban voters that they have lost in areas they use to dominate.  Its not going to work here on Long Island, nor in Westchester, same in suburban Philly, as well as in Northern Virginia,not to mention suburban Denver, etc..

I don't know much about the NYC metro area, but how much of an effect do you think socially conservative issues help in places like Weiner's or McMahon's district?  They both seem like somewhat "Archie Bunker-esque" areas or at least have elements of it.  And Weiner's district moved heavily away from the Democrats since Al Gore and John Kerry, but still a Dem district.  Unfortunately I see a slight GOP trend in what I would call "outer urban" white areas such as Northeast/South Philly and as shown in Massachusetts the election of Scott Brown.