Can the GOP win back surbubia?

[cope1989]

  1992 saw a bad breakup between the GOP and its long time steady, the upscale, well educated suburbs of the northeast and the west coast. At one point they were a match made in heaven- the tough on crime, pro business and pro family platform of the GOP made voters in places like Westchester county, Cook County, and Bucks county swoon. It looked like their love would last forever.

   Then, the party started hanging out with a different crowd. People like Ronald Reagan, Pat Buchanan and Jerry Falwell wanted the GOP to start taking a stronger stance on social issues like abortion, gay rights and prayer in schools. For a few years, the suburbs were concerned, but they hadn't dedicated so much to the relationship just to give up when things were strained!

   Things continued to get shakier, but the reliable suburbs stuck with the GOP even as the party started gaining new interests and hanging out with new people that they just didn't get. Then in 1992, things well apart. The GOP flat out abandoned its longtime partners in the suburbs in order to woo Jerry and Pat's crowd of people. Suddenly, the GOP switched its talking points from lower taxes to lower numbers of abortions. The suburbs had had enough. They had their eye on the democratic party, which obviously had been working out and spiffing itself up. They broke up with the GOP and threw themselves into the sympathetic arms of the democrats. It was only supposed to be a quick rebound, but 20 years later, they're still with the dems.

 

So, I know this was kind of a corny way to describe the GOP/Suburban alliance, but I think it makes sense. I realize many suburbs are still firmly aligned with the republicans, but many others haven't voted for the GOP in a presidential election since 1992 (or at the latest, 1996)

  Can the GOP win back these influential voters?

[Mr.Phips]

They did in 2010.

[memphis]

First off, the GOP remains strong in many suburbs. And not just the Sun Belt/South.  Suburban Cincy, Milwaukee, and to a lesser extent the Twin Cities remain strongly GOP. It's on the coasts where suburbs have left the GOP. And that's demographic change.  

[Mr.Phips]

First off, the GOP remains strong in many suburbs. And not just the Sun Belt/South.  Suburban Cincy, Milwaukee, and to a lesser extent the Twin Cities remain strongly GOP. It's on the coasts where suburbs have left the GOP. And that's demographic change.  

Yep.  Suburban Philly too.   

[Kevin]

Under President Obama and the Democrats, the pubbies have made a comeback in many suburban areas of the country that they have lost influence in over the past 20 years. For example in VA, the GOP pretty much lost NOVA from 2001-2009 for a variety of factors demographic change and urbanization not least among them on the local, state, and President level. All of which accumulated in the elections of Jim Webb to the Senate and Obama carrying the state in 2008.

However much of the Republican Party nationwide has adjusted to the circumstances, for instance by running candidates with wide appeal with roots in suburbia like Bob McDonnell in 2009. Additionally, since 2009 many of the suburbia NOVA voters who moved towards the Dems under Bush are going back to the GOP in droves because of the policies put forth by the Democrats and the fact that Obama has turned out to be something that he is showing that he isn't is the feeling at the moment. This in NOVA is leading to a graudal rollback of the Democratic gains over the past 10 years(the local and state elections coming up next week here look like they maybe a disaster for the Democrats), and it is looking increasingly likely that a suburbia heavy state like VA will go back to the GOP in 2012. 

These trends aren't only being seen in NOVA, but other Suburban areas like chunks of Florida, New Hampshire, NJ, or the Philly Suburbs. With the Republicans putting forth  candidates like Chris Christie Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio whose polices appeal to these types of voters.

[freepcrusher]

Under President Obama and the Democrats, the pubbies have made a comeback in many suburban areas of the country that they have lost influence in over the past 20 years. For example in VA, the GOP pretty much lost NOVA from 2001-2009 for a variety of factors demographic change and urbanization not least among them on the local, state, and President level. All of which accumulated in the elections of Jim Webb to the Senate and Obama carrying the state in 2008.

However much of the Republican Party nationwide has adjusted to the circumstances, for instance by running candidates with wide appeal with roots in suburbia like Bob McDonnell in 2009. Additionally, since 2009 many of the suburbia NOVA voters who moved towards the Dems under Bush are going back to the GOP in droves because of the policies put forth by the Democrats and the fact that Obama has turned out to be something that he is showing that he isn't is the feeling at the moment. This in NOVA is leading to a graudal rollback of the Democratic gains over the past 10 years(the local and state elections coming up next week here look like they maybe a disaster for the Democrats), and it is looking increasingly likely that a suburbia heavy state like VA will go back to the GOP in 2012. 

These trends aren't only being seen in NOVA, but other Suburban areas like chunks of Florida, New Hampshire, NJ, or the Philly Suburbs. With the Republicans putting forth  candidates like Chris Christie Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio whose polices appeal to these types of voters.

exactly, i'm freaked out that our coalition has pretty much crumbled

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

First off, the GOP remains strong in many suburbs. And not just the Sun Belt/South.  Suburban Cincy, Milwaukee, and to a lesser extent the Twin Cities remain strongly GOP. It's on the coasts where suburbs have left the GOP. And that's demographic change.  

Yep.  Suburban Philly too.   

Chester and Bucks- yes.  Montgomery will be a long road for the GOP.  Delaware looks only somewhat promising.  If any suburban county is lost for Obama in 2012, Bucks will be the 1st followed by Chester.  Montgomery is sooo Dem, that it will take a landslide for even Romney to win.

[sg0508]

When the GOP (somewhere around 1994) stopped talking about:

1) Jobs
2) Crime
3) Taxes
4) Death Penalty

and started yapping about (as their platform):

1) Gay Marriage
2) Abortion
3) Christianity/religion

They lost the burbs. It happened in my native LI.  A ton of long-time moderate republicans have become democrats here over the last 20 years. 

Look at 1988.  Bush swamped Dukakis in the key burbs, that won the following states; IL, PA, CA, NJ, CT, DE, MI, OH, etc.

It's no secret what's happened to the GOP.  As of now, the platform is assbackwards for the GOP in the burbs.

[Progressive Realist]

In California, at least,  as long as the GOP is perceived as being dominated by rural and exurban interests...then no.

[cope1989]

Under President Obama and the Democrats, the pubbies have made a comeback in many suburban areas of the country that they have lost influence in over the past 20 years. For example in VA, the GOP pretty much lost NOVA from 2001-2009 for a variety of factors demographic change and urbanization not least among them on the local, state, and President level. All of which accumulated in the elections of Jim Webb to the Senate and Obama carrying the state in 2008.

However much of the Republican Party nationwide has adjusted to the circumstances, for instance by running candidates with wide appeal with roots in suburbia like Bob McDonnell in 2009. Additionally, since 2009 many of the suburbia NOVA voters who moved towards the Dems under Bush are going back to the GOP in droves because of the policies put forth by the Democrats and the fact that Obama has turned out to be something that he is showing that he isn't is the feeling at the moment. This in NOVA is leading to a graudal rollback of the Democratic gains over the past 10 years(the local and state elections coming up next week here look like they maybe a disaster for the Democrats), and it is looking increasingly likely that a suburbia heavy state like VA will go back to the GOP in 2012. 

These trends aren't only being seen in NOVA, but other Suburban areas like chunks of Florida, New Hampshire, NJ, or the Philly Suburbs. With the Republicans putting forth  candidates like Chris Christie Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio whose polices appeal to these types of voters.

  Most of your examples took place in midterm, or off year elections.
1) Republicans have an advantage in most off year/midterm elections because many members of the democratic base (young people, the poor, minorities) don't show up to vote. And even then, many of these counties like Bucks and Chester weren't exactly blowouts for the GOP. Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina didn't quite dominate the suburbs in California either.

2) State GOP candidates have more freedom to appeal to the GOP base in their respective states. Republican candidates in Pennsylvania, California and Illinois were able to soften their message to GOP or swing suburban voters in those states. In the general, the Republican candidate, whoever he or she may be, won't have that freedom. They will need to tow the party line and move to the right in order to secure the votes of the religious right and rural voters, since they're running a nationwide campaign.

3) Reagan and Bush were elected in landslides but their electoral strength rested on a tightrope. They simultaneously tried to please the old republican base (the affluent suburbs) and the new base (the rural religious right) but these are two entirely different voter blocks. It's kind of like the democrats trying to court southern whites and southern blacks, they were just too different to be in the same coalition.

[Mr.Phips]

Under President Obama and the Democrats, the pubbies have made a comeback in many suburban areas of the country that they have lost influence in over the past 20 years. For example in VA, the GOP pretty much lost NOVA from 2001-2009 for a variety of factors demographic change and urbanization not least among them on the local, state, and President level. All of which accumulated in the elections of Jim Webb to the Senate and Obama carrying the state in 2008.

However much of the Republican Party nationwide has adjusted to the circumstances, for instance by running candidates with wide appeal with roots in suburbia like Bob McDonnell in 2009. Additionally, since 2009 many of the suburbia NOVA voters who moved towards the Dems under Bush are going back to the GOP in droves because of the policies put forth by the Democrats and the fact that Obama has turned out to be something that he is showing that he isn't is the feeling at the moment. This in NOVA is leading to a graudal rollback of the Democratic gains over the past 10 years(the local and state elections coming up next week here look like they maybe a disaster for the Democrats), and it is looking increasingly likely that a suburbia heavy state like VA will go back to the GOP in 2012. 

These trends aren't only being seen in NOVA, but other Suburban areas like chunks of Florida, New Hampshire, NJ, or the Philly Suburbs. With the Republicans putting forth  candidates like Chris Christie Scott Brown, and Marco Rubio whose polices appeal to these types of voters.

exactly, i'm freaked out that our coalition has pretty much crumbled

It couldnt have been done without Obama. 

[NHI]

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

[Communists For McCain]

Yes.

Get a time machine and go back to 1973 and kill the people who formed Moral Majority.

[Senator Snowstalker]

When the Moral Majority crumbles and the GOP becomes more Romneyesque, yes.

How would Democrats counter? Would we go for the South again?

[Communists For McCain]

When the Moral Majority crumbles and the GOP becomes more Romneyesque, yes.

How would Democrats counter? Would we go for the South again?

If I were to guess the Democrats would revert back to being the anti-elitist party and start portraying the Republicans as the party of grey poupon.

[Senator Snowstalker]

So yeah, the South and Midwest.

[Senator Snowstalker]

Wait a minute, why would we campaign on the GOP being the party of mustard?

[Communists For McCain]

Wait a minute, why would we campaign on the GOP being the party of mustard?

(laughs)
Good one.
I mostly got this from a quote from Wayne's World where Wayne asks these crusty old rich dudes if they would like some grey poupon in a British accent.

The biggest problem I see with this strategy of alienating social cons and becoming more moderate is that moderate Republicanism has often been associated with the image of rich WASP elitists.

In other words, the Democrats could create the New Deal Coalition, Mk. II.

[bloombergforpresident]

I think that it's mainly on the coasts where the GOP lost the suburbs. However, I know that n my city (St. Louis), the suburbs (dpending on what you call a suburb) are still pretty solidly Republican.

[Progressive Realist]

One should note that the fast-growing newer suburbs and exurbs are much more Republican than the older, more established ones, generally speaking.

Suburbanites like low taxes, fast growth, and "pro-family" policies when they first move in to the young, developing exurbs and suburbs. Once they get more established, they care more about education, infrastructure, etc.  and tend to moderate or even become liberal on cultural issues.

[Kevin]

One should note that the fast-growing newer suburbs and exurbs are much more Republican than the older, more established ones, generally speaking.

Suburbanites like low taxes, fast growth, and "pro-family" policies when they first move in to the young, developing exurbs and suburbs. Once they get more established, they care more about education, infrastructure, etc.  and tend to moderate or even become liberal on cultural issues.

Again though what happens to the older suburbs is due to demographic changes, for instance Fairfax and PW in NOVA have seen an influx in minorities in recent years, epseically Hispanics. The same with Montgomery and Prince Georges in MD, the later of which is majority-minority.   

[RomneyGekko Situation Hairgel]

When the Moral Majority crumbles and the GOP becomes more Romneyesque, yes.

How would Democrats counter? Would we go for the South again?

If I were to guess the Democrats would revert back to being the anti-elitist party and start portraying the Republicans as the party of grey poupon.

I love that 80s commerical.  "Pardon me.  Would you pass the Grey Poupon....   But of course."  Funny how in 80s sitcoms Republicans were perceived as "the Prep school kid from Connecticut."  Now CT is one of the most Democratic states in the nation.  I think the Democrats can still go with more populist policies and win some older, inner suburbs.  Philly area I'm thinking Jenkintown, Conshochocken, etc.  GOP was still winning some of the more exurban/rural parts of Montco and Bucks even up till 2004. 

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

[Hanzo]

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

Exactly how will losing part of a coalition lead to 20-30 years of Democratic rule? I'm curious to know. Plus, my generation (Millenials) will consider the GOP once you stop the worship of Reagan and stop alienating people who don't fit the base.

I think you really just don't want anyone who doesn't think like you in the party from what I see.

Both parties used to have ideological diversity and were able to win in areas, but not anymore.

What is the problem that conservative Republicans have with moderate-liberal Republicans anyways? RINO is a stupid term. It just means "(Insert group slur here)-lover". The GOP wasn't a conservative party in it's origins.

[Is JCL in mushy sappy love]

 

The GOP has to break away from the religious right and social issues, otherwise the party is doomed. Luckily I do see possibilities on the horizon in the form: Chris Christie, Scott Brown, Bob McDonnell and Marco Rubio.

You can't just kick people to the curb over night unless you want to embrace a good 20 to 30 years of Democratic rule. And it must be said, that amongst younger generations, there isn't a big group that will embrace the GOP the minute they stop caring about the unborn. They are also liberal on economic issues as well. At the same time, I actually don't think Democratic policies are in the best interest of the country on a lot of issues and as such the price of such a strategy is too great.

I should point out that certainly Rubio and McDonnell and maybe also Chris Christie (there is some conflicting info here) are pro-life.

The Republicans need a slower approach. Drop some stupid ideas like the FMA, reinvolve state's rights on social issues, be more effective advocates for their issues, and take a more balanced approached on defense (perhaps something like Newt's "Cheap Hawk" idea) as a way to bring Libertarians back into the base. THe main problem with this is they insist on 100% domination of the platform of any party they are involved, which would be just as bad as the Moral Majority's dominating it. Coalitions are about sacrifice. 

THe key is the GOP can't go back to the 1950's where they won in northern New England, NY, PA and got murdered everywhere else (see 1958 Senate map). Rino elitism is not the answer to the GOP's problem. An out of touch centrist is just as much unelectable as a TP extremist.

Exactly how will losing part of a coalition lead to 20-30 years of Democratic rule? I'm curious to know. Plus, my generation (Millenials) will consider the GOP once you stop the worship of Reagan and stop alienating people who don't fit the base.

I think you really just don't want anyone who doesn't think like you in the party from what I see.

Both parties used to have ideological diversity and were able to win in areas, but not anymore.

What is the problem that conservative Republicans have with moderate-liberal Republicans anyways? RINO is a stupid term. It just means "(Insert group slur here)-lover". The GOP wasn't a conservative party in it's origins.

We lost that diversity when the New Deal Colition broke up.