what do you think separates suburban areas that are swing/dem leaning vs

[freepcrusher]

ones that are republican leaning? Is it location (meaning what state it is)? For instance, almost all of the LA Suburbs like Norwalk, Alhambra, Pomona etc vote democrat, and that could be because it is located in a blue state. All the counties surrounding Marion County, IN often go at least 60% republican and that could be attributed to the fact that it is in a normally republican state.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pretty much. I know that Massachusetts suburbs generally aren't any less Democratic than Boston itself (Cambridge and Brookline are even more Democratic, actually). Texas suburbs are generally Republican, though. It's the same story.

[I'm Not a Witch]

I think it just depends on location/geography more than anything. I know in Missouri, the St. Louis suburbs (and even exurbs, to an extent) are swinging Democratic, but the Kansas City suburbs are generally Republican. May be because St. Louis is closer to Illinois, and Kansas City is closer to Kansas? Who knows.

[Senator Napoleon]

ones that are republican leaning? Is it location (meaning what state it is)? For instance, almost all of the LA Suburbs like Norwalk, Alhambra, Pomona etc vote democrat, and that could be because it is located in a blue state. All the counties surrounding Marion County, IN often go at least 60% republican and that could be attributed to the fact that it is in a normally republican state.

You've got it entirely reversed. How the suburbs vote is what causes those states to lean a certain way. The economic,  social, and cultural identities of particular suburbs are what causes them to vote the way they do. Don't forget that exurbs are the new suburbs.

[freepcrusher]

I think it just depends on location/geography more than anything. I know in Missouri, the St. Louis suburbs (and even exurbs, to an extent) are swinging Democratic, but the Kansas City suburbs are generally Republican. May be because St. Louis is closer to Illinois, and Kansas City is closer to Kansas? Who knows.

Yeah, I was surprised when I heard that outside of the city of Kansas City, McCain won JaCo by a point or two. So how did KC proper vote? I'm guessing close to 75% Obama?

[I'm Not a Witch]

I think it just depends on location/geography more than anything. I know in Missouri, the St. Louis suburbs (and even exurbs, to an extent) are swinging Democratic, but the Kansas City suburbs are generally Republican. May be because St. Louis is closer to Illinois, and Kansas City is closer to Kansas? Who knows.

Yeah, I was surprised when I heard that outside of the city of Kansas City, McCain won JaCo by a point or two. So how did KC proper vote? I'm guessing close to 75% Obama?

Kansas City went 78.4 percent for Obama, 20.8 percent for McCain. Still less than the City of St. Louis, though.

[homelycooking]

Pretty much. I know that Massachusetts suburbs generally aren't any less Democratic than Boston itself (Cambridge and Brookline are even more Democratic, actually). Texas suburbs are generally Republican, though. It's the same story.

Cambridge and Brookline are cities in their own right: Cambridge's population is over 100,000 and Brookline's is over 50,000. I consider Boston's suburbs to be towns like Dedham, Weston, Wayland, etc. and any of the rt. 128 corridor towns, which are indeed very Democratic, if somewhat less so than Boston.

[Progressive Realist]

The number of white people in them.

Also, education levels.

[phk]

ones that are republican leaning? Is it location (meaning what state it is)? For instance, almost all of the LA Suburbs like Norwalk, Alhambra, Pomona etc vote democrat, and that could be because it is located in a blue state. All the counties surrounding Marion County, IN often go at least 60% republican and that could be attributed to the fact that it is in a normally republican state.

Run a multivariate regression.

[Senator Sbane]

The number of white people in them.

Also, education levels.

Yes both have an effect. The former explains why so many LA county suburbs vote the way they do and the latter explains many Bay Area, Seattle and Northeast suburbs.

[Senator Napoleon]

Pretty much. I know that Massachusetts suburbs generally aren't any less Democratic than Boston itself (Cambridge and Brookline are even more Democratic, actually). Texas suburbs are generally Republican, though. It's the same story.

Cambridge and Brookline are cities in their own right: Cambridge's population is over 100,000 and Brookline's is over 50,000. I consider Boston's suburbs to be towns like Dedham, Weston, Wayland, etc. and any of the rt. 128 corridor towns, which are indeed very Democratic, if somewhat less so than Boston.

Population isn't the measure I would use to define the parameters of an urban/suburban area. Density is far more important, but even more so is that urban areas live a lifestyle that is far different than suburban areas based on circumstance. Manhattan can be as wealthy as it wants but it will never be Westchester, and vice-versa. Virginia Beach's 437,994 residents just don't live the same way that the 34,399 in West Hollywood do. I'd argue that West Hollywood is far more urban than Virginia Beach.

[krazen1211]

The number of white people in them.

This, especially in New Jersey.

Hence you have Middlesex Couty and Morris County.

[BushKenya]

Pretty much. I know that Massachusetts suburbs generally aren't any less Democratic than Boston itself (Cambridge and Brookline are even more Democratic, actually). Texas suburbs are generally Republican, though. It's the same story.

Cambridge and Brookline are cities in their own right: Cambridge's population is over 100,000 and Brookline's is over 50,000. I consider Boston's suburbs to be towns like Dedham, Weston, Wayland, etc. and any of the rt. 128 corridor towns, which are indeed very Democratic, if somewhat less so than Boston.

Would you say Waltham (Bentley College) is more or less Democratic than Boston proper is?

[Smash255]

Race plays part of it, many of the Democratic leaning suburbs tend to be more diverse than the GOP leaning ones, but you do have plenty of suburbs that are mostly white that are heavily Democratic.  In some suburbs, especially around the big cities, you tend to have a much larger Jewish population that others.   You also of course have social issues.  In some areas, especially in the south and portions of the midwest you have some socially conservative suburbs.  That really isn't the case in the suburbs of NYC, San Fran, Philly, Boston, etc.

[freepcrusher]

In some areas, especially in the south and portions of the midwest you have some socially conservative suburbs.  That really isn't the case in the suburbs of NYC, San Fran, Philly, Boston, etc.

what would be an example of a socially conservative suburb? Maybe some of those working class suburbs in eastern Hamilton County, OH?

[phk]

Depends on the reason for the suburb to form in the first place.

[sg0508]

The white, middle class suburban voters used to be republicans and now they are democrats.  White collar, suburban voters like me care about the following issues:

1) Taxes

2) Job growth

3) Deficits/fiscal issues

4) Crime

Talk to us about that.  Republicans used to do that.  The party lost us by talking about nonsense such as abortion and gay marriage.  That doesn't affect the lives of suburban voters.  Clinton started hitting the right buttons with the suburbanites in the 90s, Gore kept it up and the GOP drifted farther right.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Drifting one way or the other on the political spectrum is not the same as ignoring certain issues at the expense of a certain group.

The white, middle class suburban voters used to be republicans and now they are democrats.  White collar, suburban voters like me care about the following issues:

1) Taxes

2) Job growth

3) Deficits/fiscal issues

4) Crime

Talk to us about that.  Republicans used to do that.  The party lost us by talking about nonsense such as abortion and gay marriage.  That doesn't affect the lives of suburban voters.  Clinton started hitting the right buttons with the suburbanites in the 90s, Gore kept it up and the GOP drifted farther right.

Don't pro-life voters also deserved to be talked to about their issue? You aren't just talking about 2010 here, so in an election in prior years, is any form of attention to those people acceptable?

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Part of the reason that the GOP is becoming so exclusive is not just because of the hard right, but also the selfishness of demands from moderates. You just dimissed abortion as "nonsense". I have to beg to differ with you. It most certainly is not "nonesense" and if you fail to see a need to accomodate social conservatives, why the hell should they accomodate you? A coalition works both ways.

[sg0508]

Drifting one way or the other on the political spectrum is not the same as ignoring certain issues at the expense of a certain group.

The white, middle class suburban voters used to be republicans and now they are democrats.  White collar, suburban voters like me care about the following issues:

1) Taxes

2) Job growth

3) Deficits/fiscal issues

4) Crime

Talk to us about that.  Republicans used to do that.  The party lost us by talking about nonsense such as abortion and gay marriage.  That doesn't affect the lives of suburban voters.  Clinton started hitting the right buttons with the suburbanites in the 90s, Gore kept it up and the GOP drifted farther right.

Don't pro-life voters also deserved to be talked to about their issue? You aren't just talking about 2010 here, so in an election in prior years, is any form of attention to those people acceptable?

Yes, but the problem is, that is the central issue now for the most part.  Give me a break.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Drifting one way or the other on the political spectrum is not the same as ignoring certain issues at the expense of a certain group.

The white, middle class suburban voters used to be republicans and now they are democrats.  White collar, suburban voters like me care about the following issues:

1) Taxes

2) Job growth

3) Deficits/fiscal issues

4) Crime

Talk to us about that.  Republicans used to do that.  The party lost us by talking about nonsense such as abortion and gay marriage.  That doesn't affect the lives of suburban voters.  Clinton started hitting the right buttons with the suburbanites in the 90s, Gore kept it up and the GOP drifted farther right.

Don't pro-life voters also deserved to be talked to about their issue? You aren't just talking about 2010 here, so in an election in prior years, is any form of attention to those people acceptable?

Yes, but the problem is, that is the central issue now for the most part.  Give me a break.

I don't give people breaks. You must be wanting the Kit-Katt guy.

Would you vote for someone that focused on those issues as well as on the Social Conservatism? Are social issues the only ones where the GOP has left you behind?

[freepcrusher]

social conservatism is a big deal for me. As I said in a previous post, I became a democrat when I learned that evangelicals played a big role in the republican party. I would however probably vote for Tom Campbell if he won the nomination as he avoids those issues.