Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[krazen1211]

Excuse me if I don't take doomsday GOP narratives from liberal media sources seriously anymore.

Trump won 'suburbs' by more than Romney, McCain, and W in 2000 did. But who's counting?

[Virginiá]

I have nothing to back this up ATM, but don't you think we only are taught about the ones that stuck?  I mean, I'm sure there examples of states trending toward one party (like maybe the West trending toward first the populists [i.e., away from Republicans] and then eventually to heavily Democratic in the late 1800s only to become reliably GOP right after?) and the trend not sticking, but that doesn't really deserve the same "airtime" in a textbook as Southern Whites slowly going from 90% Democratic to 90% Republican.

Yes, that's true. I mean, there is really no strong evidence supporting the idea that districts like GA-6 will stick with current trends, but there also isn't much saying they will bounce back either. Though, I will readily admit that in this instance, given GA-6's history, it's more likely to bounce back than it is to continue trending Democratic. However after 2018 and even more so, 2020, if it's still going as Democratic as it is now, or more so even, then I'd say it might be fertile ground for Democrats.

I wish we could see where these kinds of districts will end up over a generation from now, but it's pretty hard to tell. All we have are demographics to go by, and that's not even a solid bet. If there is any group that we might expect to start trending against Democrats in the future, it's the kind of voters in this district: upscale white college graduates.

[Young Conservative]

I have nothing to back this up ATM, but don't you think we only are taught about the ones that stuck?  I mean, I'm sure there examples of states trending toward one party (like maybe the West trending toward first the populists [i.e., away from Republicans] and then eventually to heavily Democratic in the late 1800s only to become reliably GOP right after?) and the trend not sticking, but that doesn't really deserve the same "airtime" in a textbook as Southern Whites slowly going from 90% Democratic to 90% Republican.

Yes, that's true. I mean, there is really no strong evidence supporting the idea that districts like GA-6 will stick with current trends, but there also isn't much saying they will bounce back either. Though, I will readily admit that in this instance, given GA-6's history, it's more likely to bounce back than it is to continue trending Democratic. However after 2018 and even more so, 2020, if it's still going as Democratic as it is now, or more so even, then I'd say it might be fertile ground for Democrats.

I wish we could see where these kinds of districts will end up over a generation from now, but it's pretty hard to tell. All we have are demographics to go by, and that's not even a solid bet. If there is any group that we might expect to start trending against Democrats in the future, it's the kind of voters in this district: upscale white college graduates.

Upscale white college graduates aren't going to vote for people like Bernie Sanders and they definitely won't vote for tax increases for single payer, which is what the Democratic party is becoming.

[Virginiá]

Upscale white college graduates aren't going to vote for people like Bernie Sanders and they definitely won't vote for tax increases for single payer, which is what the Democratic party is becoming.

That was kind of the point of my post. However, right now, social issues have created some divisions between Republicans and some upscale whites, and as younger, more Democratic whites grow up and some become upscale themselves, there is no guarantee they quickly flee to the GOP. This could easily be a generational event where the GOP eventually moderates on social issues as the Democrats move further left on economics, slowly pushing these more Dem-leaning upscale whites back to Republicans (or there for the first time), as there is no longer a major impediment to their support for Republicans.

If such a thing happens, there is absolutely no guarantee it happens quickly, especially as long as the Republican Party remains a bastion of social conservatism. Just because it is in their economic interests to do so doesn't mean they will immediately or for some, ever. This is pretty clear with current lower income whites. Further, I might add that GOP tax/economic policy is often geared towards the hyper-wealthy and corporations, leaving a lot of well-off whites mostly in the dust. Such a need to start voting for Republicans would probably be based on the perception of necessity.

[GGSETTER]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

[Alabama_Indy10]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

[libertpaulian]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

They lost the popular vote, and they also lost seats in Congress.

[Virginiá]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

It's political news - dramatization should be expected.

But for the record, going by political power in the moment probably isn't the best way to judge the long-term viability of a political party. Democrats were riding high in 2009 and even more so in 1993, yet a year later they were swept out in quick succession. You can find lots of examples of that happening to Republicans in the past as well. For that reason, it's good to keep an eye on these kinds of trends.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

It's political news - dramatization should be expected.

But for the record, going by political power in the moment probably isn't the best way to judge the long-term viability of a political party. Democrats were riding high in 2009 and even more so in 1993, yet a year later they were swept out in quick succession. You can find lots of examples of that happening to Republicans in the past as well. For that reason, it's good to keep an eye on these kinds of trends.

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

[Virginiá]

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

I was using AlabamaIndy's logic to make my point. It doesn't matter how little Clinton won by, or whether Democrats lost a handful of seats. The point was that in terms of raw political power, Democrats were even in a better situation than Republicans were right now, and yet that all ended rather quickly. Hence it not being a good predictor of future success.

[Nyvin]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

It's political news - dramatization should be expected.

But for the record, going by political power in the moment probably isn't the best way to judge the long-term viability of a political party. Democrats were riding high in 2009 and even more so in 1993, yet a year later they were swept out in quick succession. You can find lots of examples of that happening to Republicans in the past as well. For that reason, it's good to keep an eye on these kinds of trends.

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

1992 was a three way race and he won 43% to 37%,   which is actually a pretty high marin (5.56%).   

[super6646]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

Well its kind true. Look how well Trump did in the midwest and north east, and look how abysmal he did in the south. 6/11 of the swings against him were in the south (Arizona, Utah, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia), while out of the 5 that weren't in the south, 4 were democratic states. I understand demographics and all, but going from an 18 to 9 point victory in Texas is down to many factors.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

I was using AlabamaIndy's logic to make my point. It doesn't matter how little Clinton won by, or whether Democrats lost a handful of seats. The point was that in terms of raw political power, Democrats were even in a better situation than Republicans were right now, and yet that all ended rather quickly. Hence it not being a good predictor of future success.

That just goes to show how strong of a 2 party country we are. And how the demise of either party is greatly overstated.

[hopper]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

Well its kind true. Look how well Trump did in the midwest and north east, and look how abysmal he did in the south. 6/11 of the swings against him were in the south (Arizona, Utah, Texas, Georgia, Maryland, and Virginia), while out of the 5 that weren't in the south, 4 were democratic states. I understand demographics and all, but going from an 18 to 9 point victory in Texas is down to many factors.

Maryland is not a Southern State its a Northeast State its neighbor like Delaware. Arizona and Utah are not "The South" so much as they are a part of the "Southwest". Texas-yeah ok Eastern Texas might be part of "The South" the way Mississippi is but "The Texas Triangle Cities" of Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio are closer to Phoenix in culture(it is "Southwest" in my opinion) than say Mississippi or Alabama as a whole are culturally. Virginia might as well be a Northeastern state on the Presidential Level because if not for NOVA Hillary might have lost VA too or it would have been closer if not for NOVA.

[Gass3268]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

I mean, who has said ALL will happen?

[Gass3268]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

I mean, who has said ALL will happen?

ExtremeRepublican is one

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

I mean, who has said ALL will happen?

ExtremeRepublican is one

Well, he's pretty extreme.

[Nyvin]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

Don't forget "Trump was just a bad fit for that area, it'll go back to normal after he's gone"

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

Don't forget "Trump was just a bad fit for that area, it'll go back to normal after he's gone"

How is that functionally different from the bolded?

[Tekken_Guy]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

Don't forget "Trump was just a bad fit for that area, it'll go back to normal after he's gone"

Also, "Texas isn't going Democratic any time soon."

I'm a Republican and even I don't try to pretend that we will own the future.

The one I feel is most likely to be accurate is the rust belt one, but even that isn't a guarantee.

[GGSETTER]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

[Nyvin]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

[RINO Tom]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

Things always happen like they have happened in the past ... until they don't.  Just because we have one random and unique historical example or two (e.g., the South starting to support Presidential Republicans before downballot ones) does not automatically mean that we are about to see some shift in downballot support for Republicans of a similar nature in places like suburban Texas.