Trend of the American suburbs

[sg0508]

As go the burbs, so goes the electorate.  The change from the 80s to now has been astounding and is one of the key changes in the American electorate.

Prior to the 90s, the Republicans dominated the American suburbs.  Coming from Long Island, NY and liking the burbs within Los Angeles, CA and South FL (when I visit), the profile of the suburbanite seems to be:

1) Well-educated
2) Moderate to upper middle class income
3) Cares about jobs, crime, taxes and fiscal management
4) While generally fiscally conservative, we are socially moderate to liberal
5) Religion is important, but it's not the centerpiece of our existence; it supplements life

Now, if you look at each of the elections from the 80s and perhaps even '76 (although tougher to make out), the Republican candidates in presidential elections really hurt democratic candidates in the burbs.  Remember when the GOP used to do well in IL, NJ, CT, DE, VT, CA, OR, WA, MI, PA, etc? That's because the GOP swamped democrats in the suburbs.  Even today, when republicans win seats in bluish states (i.e. Mark Kirk in IL), it's because they win big in the suburbs.  George Bush's rural performance in 1988 was actually pretty poor, but he killed Dukakis in the burbs and that was the difference that year.

As the ideologies of the GOP drifted away from the suburban voter's general way of thinking, they gradually started to support democratic candidates.  My native Long Island was staunchly GOP graceland for an entire century, but now almost always vote democratic in national elections. 

True, the demographics of America have changed as minorities have grown in terms of their overall percentages and issues like immigration reform are becoming larger, but the changes in voting behavior of the American suburbanite and the overall rejection of the "New GOP" shifted the map that going forward, strongly favors the democratic party.  Why? Look at the general characteristics I listed above of suburban voters and then link one party that better fits our interests?

[All Along The Watchtower]

Suburbs, depending on their location, their age, their racial makeup, their economic status (is the suburb more white-collar or blue-collar? Do unionized workers exist in significant numbers? How affluent are the people there, in general?), the culture of the metro area a particular suburb is a part of, and the mode of development of the suburb (going from rural to exurban to suburban, being incorporated or unincorporated, having a long established history as a town or small city, etc.), can vary greatly in their political leanings, between different metro areas and within the same metro areas.

Just compare the suburbs of Houston in Montgomery County, Texas, or the suburbs of Birmingham in Shelby County, Alabama, or even the Milwaukee, Wisconsin suburbs, to the suburbs of D.C. in Montgomery County, Maryland or San Mateo County, California, for San Francisco Bay Area suburbs. Look at the inner-ring suburbs of Chicago vs the newer outer-ring suburbs of the same metro area.  Look at the coastal suburbs of California (in general) vs most of the suburbs of the Central Valley cities.

My point is: you cannot generalize too much about suburbs, as there are a variety of different kinds, and often, many kinds can be found in the same metro area.

[Person Man]

I've noticed that, too. In really Red states that actually have cities, the suburbs are no different than the areas that surround them while in Blue states, the burbs vote just like that cities. ...and of course there's Vermont and Colorado Springs. Vermont could just be a really small and spread out city and Colorado Springs could just be a tight collection of small towns.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Apparently being stuck in the 1980's isn't just about Conservative Republicans?


1. Take a look at racial demographic breakdowns of these "suburbs" you love so much. I guarrantee you they are far less white then they were in 1980, in many of them.

2. Keep in mind generational changes. Those moderate Republican Baby Boomers, tend to have considerably more liberal millenials for children and they are liberal on more then just social issues.

Diversification and generational change are a big reason why you won't see a Republican get 72% in Orange county for instance.

Now the shift rightward has played a role, no doubt. But it is one amongst many factors.

The problem with the 1970's GOP and even the 1980's GOP was that it lacked a firm regional base and thus had no sustainable power in Congress. Look downballot in these very same areas. LI has been electing Democratic Reps since the 1950's, Philly burbs got the taste for it in 1974. In many ways this "suburban domination" you keep dwelling on, is exaggerated. It did exist in SoCal and Chicagoland, but you have to remember that the types of Republcians they were sending to the house weren't Mark Kirks. It was the unabashedly pro-life Henry Hyde and some of the CA extremists that freepcrusher likes to bring up all the time. Bob Dornan ring a bell? He lost because of the diversification of his district, by the way. Ron Packard wasn't exactly a moderate either.

[dspNY]

As go the burbs, so goes the electorate.  The change from the 80s to now has been astounding and is one of the key changes in the American electorate.

Prior to the 90s, the Republicans dominated the American suburbs.  Coming from Long Island, NY and liking the burbs within Los Angeles, CA and South FL (when I visit), the profile of the suburbanite seems to be:

1) Well-educated
2) Moderate to upper middle class income
3) Cares about jobs, crime, taxes and fiscal management
4) While generally fiscally conservative, we are socially moderate to liberal
5) Religion is important, but it's not the centerpiece of our existence; it supplements life

Now, if you look at each of the elections from the 80s and perhaps even '76 (although tougher to make out), the Republican candidates in presidential elections really hurt democratic candidates in the burbs.  Remember when the GOP used to do well in IL, NJ, CT, DE, VT, CA, OR, WA, MI, PA, etc? That's because the GOP swamped democrats in the suburbs.  Even today, when republicans win seats in bluish states (i.e. Mark Kirk in IL), it's because they win big in the suburbs.  George Bush's rural performance in 1988 was actually pretty poor, but he killed Dukakis in the burbs and that was the difference that year.

As the ideologies of the GOP drifted away from the suburban voter's general way of thinking, they gradually started to support democratic candidates.  My native Long Island was staunchly GOP graceland for an entire century, but now almost always vote democratic in national elections. 

True, the demographics of America have changed as minorities have grown in terms of their overall percentages and issues like immigration reform are becoming larger, but the changes in voting behavior of the American suburbanite and the overall rejection of the "New GOP" shifted the map that going forward, strongly favors the democratic party.  Why? Look at the general characteristics I listed above of suburban voters and then link one party that better fits our interests?

Depends on which suburbs you're talking about...when you talk about Long Island, your statement is definitely correct. The same is true for Philly, Boston, DC, Baltimore, SF, LA, Seattle, Portland, and other suburbs in blue states.

When you move towards the red states, the suburbs are very red. Cities like Memphis, Birmingham, Nashville, Charlotte, Atlanta, Phoenix, KC, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio have some of the reddest suburban counties in America (and some of the reddest counties period)