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.

[barfbag]

Suburbs don't have the kind of social conservatives the Republican party was becoming then and has become. They used to be light red and now they're a purplish blue. People have left living in cities and moved to the suburbs to escape the stress of cities but increased populations in the suburbs have made things more political there and has led to not being as Republican. 1992 saw the start of it and Ross Perot didn't help.

[patrick1]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

[barfbag]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

Yes, but ever since then they haven't been in the Republican column either.

[patrick1]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

Yes, but ever since then they haven't been in the Republican column either.

Really, really depends on the location of said suburb.

[barfbag]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

Yes, but ever since then they haven't been in the Republican column either.

Or what's being considered a suburb. I've lived in places some would consider a suburb and others wouldn't. Some suburbs tend to be hit or miss as different classes of people don't tend to live in the same communities.
Really, really depends on the location of said suburb.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

The Republican Party was a big tent party from the 1940s-1980s. The moderate wing dominated until the late-1970s, when the conservatives took over. This is exemplified by Reagan defeating Bush in the 1980 primaries. But Reagan chose GHWB as VP to keep the enormous moderate wing's support.

The Republican Party moderate wing was extremely diverse, with many voters mixing and matching stances on women's rights, abortion, environmentalism, etc. with an overarching emphasis on business/economic issues (as opposed to social issues) domestically, and was united by the Republicans' hard-line stance against communism on foreign policy.

Flash-forward to December 26, 1991. The Soviet Union collapses. Anti-communism as a uniting factor = gone.

With the 1990 recession and the jobless recovery through 1992(recession ends March '91: unemployment 6.8%, June 1992: peaks at 7.8%), the national mood is against Republicans and GHWB. You've got to remember that the 1990 recession was the first "jobless recovery", since the Great Depression.

Thus people really turned against Reaganomics in 1992, thinking it was the cause (whereas in 2012, after the 2001 and 2008 recessions, people understood this "new normal", which is why last year was a status-quo election despite similar unemployment levels). Recessions between 1945-1989 were the results of the changes in monetary policy, while 1990/2001/2008 were all deflationary financial crises.

Bush breaking his "no new taxes" pledge angers many. Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech alienates moderates. Many moderate Republicans and independents leave the Republican Party for Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" platform of smaller government, domestic focus, tough on crime middle class tax break, etc. A smaller number go to Perot.

Thus, Clinton wins the suburbs and the election.

[tpfkaw]

I think the effect of the "Culture War" speech is probably way exaggerated due to something along the lines of the Pauline Kael effect.  Besides abortion, Buchanan didn't bring up any issues that didn't have large majority support at the time, and polls showed, IIRC, that a majority of voters had a positive opinion of the speech.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I think the effect of the "Culture War" speech is probably way exaggerated due to something along the lines of the Pauline Kael effect.  Besides abortion, Buchanan didn't bring up any issues that didn't have large majority support at the time, and polls showed, IIRC, that a majority of voters had a positive opinion of the speech.

By itself, no the speech had minimal effect, you are correct. But in the larger context of things, it contributed to the view that all Republicans had to unite them was divisive social issues. And even in the effect wasn't huge in 1992, since the 1990s this perception has hurt the Republicans.

[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.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Clinton was young, charismatic, and perceived as more moderate on social issues.

[barfbag]

It sucks big-time that we lost the suburbs in New York. Now, the state is a one party town, which is something you never want, whether you're Democrat or Republican.

At least pre-1992, we could contest NY State in national elections. We lost more often than we won, but we still had a shot.

Yes we saw what one party systems can do in Nazi-Germany and today in China. Now it's happening in places like Massachusetts and New York.

[barfbag]

It sucks big-time that we lost the suburbs in New York. Now, the state is a one party town, which is something you never want, whether you're Democrat or Republican.

At least pre-1992, we could contest NY State in national elections. We lost more often than we won, but we still had a shot.

Yes we saw what one party systems can do in Nazi-Germany and today in China. Now it's happening in places like Massachusetts and New York.

Is it even remotely possible for you to cool it with the hyperbole and hyperpartisanship? I'm sick and tired of how on any website or political forum anywhere on the internet, someone has to compare the Democrats/Republicans to brutal dictatorial regimes. It is not remotely valid or called for. Please, just stop with this.

Lol ok sometimes we just get hyped up because of the love we have for our country. Extreme passion can lead to extreme labeling on both sides.

[ElectionsGuy]

It sucks big-time that we lost the suburbs in New York. Now, the state is a one party town, which is something you never want, whether you're Democrat or Republican.

At least pre-1992, we could contest NY State in national elections. We lost more often than we won, but we still had a shot.

Yes we saw what one party systems can do in Nazi-Germany and today in China. Now it's happening in places like Massachusetts and New York.

Is it even remotely possible for you to cool it with the hyperbole and hyperpartisanship? I'm sick and tired of how on any website or political forum anywhere on the internet, someone has to compare the Democrats/Republicans to brutal dictatorial regimes. It is not remotely valid or called for. Please, just stop with this.

This can be said for states like Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Idaho too, not just blue states.

[Indy Texas]

I think the effect of the "Culture War" speech is probably way exaggerated due to something along the lines of the Pauline Kael effect.  Besides abortion, Buchanan didn't bring up any issues that didn't have large majority support at the time, and polls showed, IIRC, that a majority of voters had a positive opinion of the speech.

The "We're the real America. They are not America!" line made it one of the ugliest, most despicable speeches a major speaker has ever given at an American nominating convention. And it summed up the attitude the GOP has taken ever since then. It's why by 2012 they proved themselves incapable of winning statewide and nationwide races, and only succeeded in congressional and legislative races that they had gerrymandered the hell out of.

[stevekamp]

The Ross Perot air raid cratered the suburban R vote.  Clinton carried these counties with Dukakis percents but big margins.

In 1996, Perot ran again, but his 9% came mostly from rural areas.  The suburbs gave Clinton majorities.

In 2000, Gore + Nader overperformed Clinton in the suburbs.

In 2004, 2008, 2012, only Republican suburbs are Milwaukee and Cincinatti-Dayton, plus exurbs like Morris-Warren-Somerset-Hunterdon in NJ.

[cheesepizza]

The Ross Perot air raid cratered the suburban R vote.  Clinton carried these counties with Dukakis percents but big margins.

In 1996, Perot ran again, but his 9% came mostly from rural areas.  The suburbs gave Clinton majorities.

In 2000, Gore + Nader overperformed Clinton in the suburbs.

In 2004, 2008, 2012, only Republican suburbs are Milwaukee and Cincinatti-Dayton, plus exurbs like Morris-Warren-Somerset-Hunterdon in NJ.

There are plenty of Republican suburbs in cities like Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Omaha, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Birmingham, Atlanta, Charleston, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Tampa, Lexington, Louisville, Nashville, Memphis, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Grand Rapids. 

Romney narrowly won the suburban vote (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president/exit-polls).

We're fine in most Midwestern and pretty much all Southern suburbs.  The GOP's problem is really the Northeastern and Western suburbs, plus perhaps the Detroit/Chicago suburbs.  I think we can reach out to them on fiscal issues.

[SingingAnalyst]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

Yes, but ever since then they haven't been in the Republican column either.

Really, really depends on the location of said suburb.

I agree with all of the above. Today rural areas and exurbs outside the Northeast are the GOP's stronghold. Most suburbs are increasingly ethnically diverse (not to mention more diverse i terms of lifestyle and social attitudes) and suffering from infrastructure decay, just as older cities are or were.

[sg0508]

1) The economy
2) Raising Taxes
3) The culture war speech

[bobloblaw]

Here is WHY:

The 1990-91 recession hit white collar workers especially hard. Lots of layoffs in banking and finance. Even though the recession wasnt worse than 1981-82, it was worse for white collar workers.

Firms that had never had a single layoff in their history had layoffs in 1990-91, like IBM.

[bobloblaw]

It's the economy, stupid.

You can't take voting patterns out of their proper context. The economy, or perception of it at least was grim and many felt Bush was doing nothing about it.

Yes, but ever since then they haven't been in the Republican column either.

Because we havent had an election with a Dem incumbent presiding over a recession or a GOP incumbent presiding over a 1984 boom.

[All Along The Watchtower]

A lot of Bill Clinton's appeal was to white middle-class suburbanites, especially those Democrats* who had voted Republican in the previous three presidential elections. It wasn't just suburban Republicans switching to Clinton (or Perot) or staying home. If anything, most suburban Republicans would likely have been more loyal to Bush Sr. than more moderate urban or conservative rural Republicans.




_{*I refuse to use the term "Reagan Democrats" out of principle.}

[Sumner 1868]

Suburbs voted heavily for LBJ in 1964 and Carter by a fairly wide margin in 1976. Republican support by suburbanites in the 1980s was inflated by the pathetic state of the Democrats.

[libertpaulian]

It sucks big-time that we lost the suburbs in New York. Now, the state is a one party town, which is something you never want, whether you're Democrat or Republican.

At least pre-1992, we could contest NY State in national elections. We lost more often than we won, but we still had a shot.

Yes we saw what one party systems can do in Nazi-Germany and today in China. Now it's happening in places like Massachusetts and New York.

Is it even remotely possible for you to cool it with the hyperbole and hyperpartisanship? I'm sick and tired of how on any website or political forum anywhere on the internet, someone has to compare the Democrats/Republicans to brutal dictatorial regimes. It is not remotely valid or called for. Please, just stop with this.

This can be said for states like Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, and Idaho too, not just blue states.

Kansas and Wyoming had Democratic governors as recently as January 2011.

[Gekkonidae]

Maybe because Clinton was pretty c:

(I mean, really uwu)
.
.
.
.
UvU