"new" suburban voters

[Beet]

If anything, 2004 will be the year of the new suburban voter. Of this I mean the fast-growing outer suburbs and the suburbs that sprang up around metropolitan areas during the 1990's boom and the real estate boom of most recent years.

For example in my own state of Maryland. In 1950, about half the population lived in the city of Baltimore while only one in five lived in the suburbs. Now only 12 percent of the state population lives in Balitmore (and the city accounts for only 9 percent of total voters), but 76 percent live in the suburbs. While older suburbs and cities stay Democratic, the newer suburbs are quite republican, even trending that way. This is true even though Maryland is a traditionally democratic state, so it's not like people in the Atlanta suburbs whose voting patterns are mirrored statewide. But even there, there's evidence that the newer suburbs are even more conservative than the rest of Georgia. What i'm wondering is, why is this? What kind of issues are important to voters in these fast-growing areas? Who are moving into these areas, where are they moving from, and are they driving the housing boom?

[Beet]

Thanks, JNB and NorthernDog, for your replies.

So NorthernDog, you are saying, at least in local elections, Democrats are spending tax money disproportionately or even exclusively on more urban projects, which is the reason for the disparity. This seems to make sense as most of the traditional infrastrucutre spending goes towards more densely populated areas; then again, fast-growing areas should need new roads, schools, etc. as well, but the Democrats' desire to balance growth with environmental protection may make them less likely to promise large road projects than Republicans.

On the national level, I feel that it is more likely that these people will be higher income professionals who generally have less need for programs such as medicare and social security. The poverty rate is rising, but the upper middle class is growing faster, probably at the cost of the lower middle class, and these people are betting their retirements on other investments than social security.

[Beet]

Yes the rural vote is guranteed a large majority to Republicans. The city vote is supposedly to go a large majority to Democrats, but once again there are MAJOR exceptions such as virtually all big Texas cities, Miami and San Diego. I would suspect there are exceptions to the "rural rule" in New England, but I haven't seen the numbers, and it would just be the exception that makes the rule. However it is really the suburban vote that make up the large central bulk of the voters. One issue of interest is that the shift in population due to the housing boom and the economic/geographic profile of those participating in it and driving it. New houses are being built at a rate much faster than population growth, so the people must be coming from somewhere. I would guess that they are coming from older suburbs and people from cities are moving into those burbs. In other words the same trend we have been seeing since the 1950s or even the 1920s, with the population spreading itself out. But maybe not.

Also it looks like the entire state of Missouri is trending Republican except for St. Louis and a couple counties outside St. Louis that may be the suburbs of that city but I do not know. In 1976 Carter did well in many Missouri counties but failed to carry St. Louis county. In 1980 Reagan won both St. Louis and neighboring Jefferson county. So did Bush Sr. (carried both with majorities) in 1988 even though Dukakis won 48% of that state. However in 2000 with Gore losing the state with just 47%, he carried both counties by majorities. Using Leip's map you can also see that many other counties that voted Democratic during Republican wins/close elections in 1976/80 and 1988 have now shifted Republican for 2000. Most striking is the Democrats' loss of Dunklin county, which went Democrat every election year except from 1976 onwards except 1984.