Are suburbs actually getting more Democratic?

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Or, is it really just that areas that used to be suburban have now become urban?  And, the areas that used to be exurban/lightly rural are now purely suburban and vote Republican?  In other words, do the stereotypical suburbs vote like they always have, but are just now located further away from the cities?

[Bismarck]

I think this is part of the reason why suburban counties are trending democratic. The other big thing is that suburbs are diversifying, which is a greater part of the trend in most places than whites shifting "because they are educated" or whatever else.

[MarkD]

St. Louis County first started turning Democratic about 25-27 years ago.
The last time it voted R for President was in 1988. Two years after that, the Democrats won the position of County Executive for the first time in a few decades, and have held it ever since. in 2016, even though the Republican ticket won every statewide race, every Republican statewide candidate lost St. Louis County. There are many more Democrats than Republicans elected from state legislative districts in the County even though Republicans have more than two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the state legislature.
An enormous change in the racial demographics over the 1980s and 1990s coincides with the partisan change. As of the 1980 census, only 14% of the county's population was black. By 1990, the percentage had risen to 19%, and as of 2010 it's about 23% black. The predominantly black area (Northeast County) is the backbone of the Democratic Party's strength. If it weren't for the fact that nearly 1/4 of the population votes faithfully, over 95%, for the Democratic ticket, Republicans would still have a (narrow) advantage.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

The WoW Cruzlim counties in Wisconsin (turned solid GOP by Reagan) and Cruzlim Ottawa County, MI (solid GOP for a long time) clearly had no anti-GOP trend before Trump. They were the most Republican counties in their respective states even as late as 2012.

The Philadelphia suburbs (not Cruzlim) were Republican bastions under Reagan, but trended strongly Democratic under WJC.

The Dallas and Houston suburbs clearly were trending Democratic from 2000 onward slowly but surely.

So it depends on what suburb.

There is no doubt the southern rurals are much more Republican than they were in earlier decades, though.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Or, is it really just that areas that used to be suburban have now become urban?

Are these just racially-coded terms?

[RINO Tom]

Or, is it really just that areas that used to be suburban have now become urban?

Are these just racially-coded terms?

If you'd like them to be, I guess?  Could just mean that urban voters have ALWAYS voted more Democratic - likely because an urban environment makes large government investments in things like public works and infrastructure at the initial expense of the taxpayer - and suburbs (specifically newer ones, which most of the most notable suburbs we all talk about now WERE when they were super Republican) have generally been more skeptical of these initiatives, lacking to see the advantage they'd enjoy, and therefore more anti-tax?

Anyway, as for the OP, I'd say it is a combination of both; the trend couldn't happen to the degree it has with any one reason by itself.  It's completely asinine and insulting to mathematics to insinuate that the GOP's decline in formerly Republican suburban counties could have been caused by something stupid like "moving to the right on social issues," but that probably caused a small chunk of moderate to liberal Republicans to defect.  Similarly, some of these counties could not have flipped simply by demographic change, but that certainly plays a huge role.

I will say, though, that many of the suburban counties we talk about know would have had a more exurban character in the '60s, '70s and '80s, and most exurban areas are still heavily Republican ... so take from that what you will.

[BaldEagle1991]

A lot of it has to do with diversification, Fort Bend County, TX, Cobb County, GA, and Orange County, CA are good examples of this.

[Person Man]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

[Mr. Smith]

Don't forget gentrification within cities, that causes a bit of a flight to the suburbs where things are cheaper too.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

Well that's true but overall Clinton cleaned up in places like Westchester and Fairfield County.  I was shocked that she was getting decent margins out of places like Greenwich and New Canaan... quintessential Republican towns.

-Those people were elitist hacks; they were bound to swing big league against a true man of the people.

[RFayette]

It's a combination of both expansion of the metro areas in conjunction with increasing diversity of suburban areas (and a higher percentage of educated voters, which was abnormally significant in 2016, though it remains to be seen whether this factor will remain going forward).  That being said, the premise of this question is kind of silly in that there are plenty of places where suburbs are not getting more Democratic at all.

Take the Chicago suburbs on the Indiana side.  Lake and Porter County, Indiana, swung significantly toward Trump.  Same with many NYC suburbs, the Quad cities, Virginia Beach suburbs, Tampa suburbs, Colorado Springs suburbs, Flint/Detroit suburbs (not Macomb, but the rest of the metro), and a whole host of smaller suburban areas - from Green Bay to Sioux City to Terra Haute to Evansville to South Bend to virtually any West Virginia suburb, etc.  The only big swings against Trump came in suburbs of big metropolitan areas.  But suburbs of smaller metropolitan areas did not show this pattern.

[Person Man]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

You mean winning by one point after totally maxing out the rural areas? As rural areas build up, streak of light red turn to light blue but red becomes really red! So the question is how many swing voters are left out there in the dark red?

[RINO Tom]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

Well that's true but overall Clinton cleaned up in places like Westchester and Fairfield County.  I was shocked that she was getting decent margins out of places like Greenwich and New Canaan... quintessential Republican towns.

-Those people were elitist hacks; they were bound to swing big league against a true man of the people.

God, you're annoying.

Anyway, I think there are two pretty clear patterns with suburbs that explain things WAY better than "MUH, this suburb is enlightened and this one is racist" or "MUH, Southernized vs. rest of 'Murica!" and both reasons are definitely intertwined:

1) The age of the suburb ... older suburbs are going to share financial concerns with cities and therefore vote more Democratic.  Suburbanites in newer suburbs that are booming economically aren't about to vote to raise their own taxes (i.e., vote Democrat) just to benefit other areas, while suburbanites in older, more urbanized suburbs are going to see a lot more upside to investing in infrastructure and public works.

2) The proximity of suburbs ... this pretty much goes along with the first point, but if you look at a precinct map, the suburbs get more Republican - in EVERY area - the farther they are removed from the city.  It totally stands to reason that a suburb closer to the city will behave more like an urban area politically.

This can explain away other factors that we try to chuck at the wall and see if they stick such as region (many Southern and Western suburbs are newer than Northern ones and consequently vote like their Northern counterparts did when they were also new in the 20th Century) or diversity (I'm willing to be there is a high correlation between how close a suburb is to the city limits and how diverse it is ... I mean, White flight was a historical fact, right?).  We can throw whatever bullshlt narratives out there that, well, fit our own narrative like "affluent suburbanites were turned off by Republicans being a hick party so became Democrats!!!!!!", but find me a rich, white exurb on the outer ring of a metro area that just magically started voting Democrat because the GOP had "gone crazy."  I'll be waiting.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

You mean winning by one point after totally maxing out the rural areas? As rural areas build up, streak of light red turn to light blue but red becomes really red! So the question is how many swing voters are left out there in the dark red?

-What percent of the vote did Trump get in Vermont?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

Well that's true but overall Clinton cleaned up in places like Westchester and Fairfield County.  I was shocked that she was getting decent margins out of places like Greenwich and New Canaan... quintessential Republican towns.

-Those people were elitist hacks; they were bound to swing big league against a true man of the people.

God, you're annoying.

Anyway, I think there are two pretty clear patterns with suburbs that explain things WAY better than "MUH, this suburb is enlightened and this one is racist" or "MUH, Southernized vs. rest of 'Murica!" and both reasons are definitely intertwined:

1) The age of the suburb ... older suburbs are going to share financial concerns with cities and therefore vote more Democratic.  Suburbanites in newer suburbs that are booming economically aren't about to vote to raise their own taxes (i.e., vote Democrat) just to benefit other areas, while suburbanites in older, more urbanized suburbs are going to see a lot more upside to investing in infrastructure and public works.

2) The proximity of suburbs ... this pretty much goes along with the first point, but if you look at a precinct map, the suburbs get more Republican - in EVERY area - the farther they are removed from the city.  It totally stands to reason that a suburb closer to the city will behave more like an urban area politically.

This can explain away other factors that we try to chuck at the wall and see if they stick such as region (many Southern and Western suburbs are newer than Northern ones and consequently vote like their Northern counterparts did when they were also new in the 20th Century) or diversity (I'm willing to be there is a high correlation between how close a suburb is to the city limits and how diverse it is ... I mean, White flight was a historical fact, right?).  We can throw whatever bullshlt narratives out there that, well, fit our own narrative like "affluent suburbanites were turned off by Republicans being a hick party so became Democrats!!!!!!", but find me a rich, white exurb on the outer ring of a metro area that just magically started voting Democrat because the GOP had "gone crazy."  I'll be waiting.

-Both are poor explanations, especially in the Age of Trump.

[Person Man]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

You mean winning by one point after totally maxing out the rural areas? As rural areas build up, streak of light red turn to light blue but red becomes really red! So the question is how many swing voters are left out there in the dark red?

-What percent of the vote did Trump get in Vermont?

Is Vermont even like the rest of the country?

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

You mean winning by one point after totally maxing out the rural areas? As rural areas build up, streak of light red turn to light blue but red becomes really red! So the question is how many swing voters are left out there in the dark red?

-What percent of the vote did Trump get in Vermont?

Is Vermont even like the rest of the country?

-Who cares? It's very White. It's rural. What percent of the vote did Trump get there?

[Person Man]

It makes it seem that Republicans have to either do better in cities or hope the population starts to plateau. An alternative to this is that there are enough people that can afford reliable cars and to live in new lifestyle centers but can't afford 2-3 bed room condos in town.

https://twitter.com/mcimaps/status/818136010685030401

You mean winning by one point after totally maxing out the rural areas? As rural areas build up, streak of light red turn to light blue but red becomes really red! So the question is how many swing voters are left out there in the dark red?

-What percent of the vote did Trump get in Vermont?

Is Vermont even like the rest of the country?

-Who cares? It's very White. It's rural. What percent of the vote did Trump get there?

It's a different kind of rural.  It's like small towns that are culturally more like cities than small disconnected rural areas... think of like a ski resort in Colorado type environment.  Yes you are geographically isolated, but it feels more like the city.

You can even tell by the road signs. It feels more like Aspen than rural Sumter County, FL.

And there are opposite places as well such as Mesa, Arizona, Melbourne, Fl, and Colorado Springs. Basically, a set of strip malls, trailer parks, and lifestyle centers called a "city". Those types of communities are designed as safe spaces for white people. They are actually a lot like safe spaces where you get blankets, hugs, and food and whatnot.

[RINO Tom]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

Well that's true but overall Clinton cleaned up in places like Westchester and Fairfield County.  I was shocked that she was getting decent margins out of places like Greenwich and New Canaan... quintessential Republican towns.

-Those people were elitist hacks; they were bound to swing big league against a true man of the people.

God, you're annoying.

Anyway, I think there are two pretty clear patterns with suburbs that explain things WAY better than "MUH, this suburb is enlightened and this one is racist" or "MUH, Southernized vs. rest of 'Murica!" and both reasons are definitely intertwined:

1) The age of the suburb ... older suburbs are going to share financial concerns with cities and therefore vote more Democratic.  Suburbanites in newer suburbs that are booming economically aren't about to vote to raise their own taxes (i.e., vote Democrat) just to benefit other areas, while suburbanites in older, more urbanized suburbs are going to see a lot more upside to investing in infrastructure and public works.

2) The proximity of suburbs ... this pretty much goes along with the first point, but if you look at a precinct map, the suburbs get more Republican - in EVERY area - the farther they are removed from the city.  It totally stands to reason that a suburb closer to the city will behave more like an urban area politically.

This can explain away other factors that we try to chuck at the wall and see if they stick such as region (many Southern and Western suburbs are newer than Northern ones and consequently vote like their Northern counterparts did when they were also new in the 20th Century) or diversity (I'm willing to be there is a high correlation between how close a suburb is to the city limits and how diverse it is ... I mean, White flight was a historical fact, right?).  We can throw whatever bullshlt narratives out there that, well, fit our own narrative like "affluent suburbanites were turned off by Republicans being a hick party so became Democrats!!!!!!", but find me a rich, white exurb on the outer ring of a metro area that just magically started voting Democrat because the GOP had "gone crazy."  I'll be waiting.

-Both are poor explanations, especially in the Age of Trump.

Dash: Thanks for putting as much effort into your response as I did to mine.  Then again, it doesn't take much effort to say all politics can boil down to God fearin' WORKERZ vs. coastal types, LOL.  Solid analysis, Trumpists.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

many of the ones immediately outside of big cities certainly are.  See, e.g., NYC, DC, Chicago, SF burbs.

-Around NYC, it heavily depended on college education; Trump won Long Island outside NYC. First Republican since H.W. Bush to do so.

Well that's true but overall Clinton cleaned up in places like Westchester and Fairfield County.  I was shocked that she was getting decent margins out of places like Greenwich and New Canaan... quintessential Republican towns.

-Those people were elitist hacks; they were bound to swing big league against a true man of the people.

God, you're annoying.

Anyway, I think there are two pretty clear patterns with suburbs that explain things WAY better than "MUH, this suburb is enlightened and this one is racist" or "MUH, Southernized vs. rest of 'Murica!" and both reasons are definitely intertwined:

1) The age of the suburb ... older suburbs are going to share financial concerns with cities and therefore vote more Democratic.  Suburbanites in newer suburbs that are booming economically aren't about to vote to raise their own taxes (i.e., vote Democrat) just to benefit other areas, while suburbanites in older, more urbanized suburbs are going to see a lot more upside to investing in infrastructure and public works.

2) The proximity of suburbs ... this pretty much goes along with the first point, but if you look at a precinct map, the suburbs get more Republican - in EVERY area - the farther they are removed from the city.  It totally stands to reason that a suburb closer to the city will behave more like an urban area politically.

This can explain away other factors that we try to chuck at the wall and see if they stick such as region (many Southern and Western suburbs are newer than Northern ones and consequently vote like their Northern counterparts did when they were also new in the 20th Century) or diversity (I'm willing to be there is a high correlation between how close a suburb is to the city limits and how diverse it is ... I mean, White flight was a historical fact, right?).  We can throw whatever bullshlt narratives out there that, well, fit our own narrative like "affluent suburbanites were turned off by Republicans being a hick party so became Democrats!!!!!!", but find me a rich, white exurb on the outer ring of a metro area that just magically started voting Democrat because the GOP had "gone crazy."  I'll be waiting.

-Both are poor explanations, especially in the Age of Trump.

Dash: Thanks for putting as much effort into your response as I did to mine.  Then again, it doesn't take much effort to say all politics can boil down to God fearin' WORKERZ vs. coastal types, LOL.  Solid analysis, Trumpists.

-Your very welcome. In any case, housing age is positively correlated to Trump swing, while Philly and the immediate suburbs of Flint also trended towards Trump.

[Person Man]

Which places are we actually talking about? There is no such thing as a "stereotypical" suburb. We're talking about places that include more than two-thirds of the US population and that can range in population density by an order of magnitude.

My working definition of suburban is "any urban area in which it is easy to get around without owning a car." Something like 70% of Americans live in places that fit this definition, with most of the remainder living urban places and probably less than 10% living in places that are actually rural. The Census definition of rural is pretty generous, and uses county-level geography which is much too large a unit, and even that barely includes 15% of the US population.

HRC improved relative to Obama in a very specific kind of suburb (diverse, high income, high educational attainment) that is a much more important part of the urban environment in large cities.

An important point to remember is that given the distribution of the vote, winning Republicans will always win the suburbs. This was the coalition that wrought the Nixon and Reagan landslides. It's difficult to appreciate this in the national county map, because it exaggerates the importance of rural places and counties are much larger than the ideal unit of analysis for assessing this. But if you know what you're looking for, you can see it in any map from 1968 through 1988: At the presidential level, Republicans were much better at winning suburban areas than Democrats, and this advantage translated to national landslides as the country became more and more overwhelmingly suburban at the expense of rural and non-automobile-oriented urban places.

We haven't seen a truly impressive Republican win since 1988, but Republican candidates still need to win the suburbs while Democrats can afford to lose them by a few percentage points. This is because:

(1) Democrats do better in virtually ever high-population density place in the country, while Republicans tend to do better in rural/village/small city settings.

(2) However, in the latter case, Republicans are not as dominant as Democrats are in most cities.

(3) There are also many more exceptions (the Delta, the Valley in Texas, the Berkshires, Indian reservations, the Iron Mountains, until 2016 the Driftless Area, etc.)

(4) Moreover, these sectors contain many fewer places than the large cities in which Democrats dominate.

(5) On top of that, the suburbs as a whole are more elastic.

Obviously, the math changes somewhat if Democrats continue to give up on their remaining rural outposts and the minority of voters that support them in many rural and small city areas and they begin to lose places like northern Michigan by the same 80-20 margin by which Republicans lose many cities.

This is totally happening.  I think this is good.  The real battle lines will be drawn in between big city suburbs and exurbs.  It will make gerrymandering a bit harder in the future as the Republican vote is getting as concentrated in the rural areas as the Democratic vote is concentrated in big cities.

This is a future where Democrats might warm up to voter ID laws due to the packing of the R vote. Of course, they are immoral concern trolls, but still.

[ClassiCoolidge]

Haven't suburbs been liberal for like the past 30 years? But yeah, Republican suburbs are becoming extinct. I was shocked when Orange County flipped blue.

[(Still) muted by Kalwejt until March 31]

Haven't suburbs been liberal for like the past 30 years? But yeah, Republican suburbs are becoming extinct. I was shocked when Orange County flipped blue.

-But Suffolk and Macomb flipped red.