"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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Newer neighborhoods tend to involve higher income families.  They tend to vote for positions favoring a free market and try to protect their kids from immorality.

[jravnsbo]

MN's suburbs are exploding and dominant GOP country.  First they voted for Jesse (RP/I) then went all GOP in 2002.

[JNB]

 The suburbs are not a monlithic block by any means. In your state of MD, the subrubs in Prince Georges and Montgomery County went from being toss-up to even GOP leaning in the 60s and 70s to being Democratic strongholds of today. This is how I break up the different suburbs.
 
  OLDER SUBURBS-
    Multi-Ethnic/majority minority- These tend to be almost and in some cases even more so Democratic than the inner city areas. Examples are Prince Georges County in your state, Southfeild outside of Detroit.

    Upper middle class- These tend to be Republican still, though not as Republican as they were in the 80s because of social issues. Some examples are the inner ring of West County St Louis suburbs such as Town and Country, Upper Arlington outside of Columbus Ohio and Fair Oaks outside of Sacramento CA.

   Highly educated/near universities- These suburbs were GOP bastions in the 60s and 70s, and even in the 80s had a lean towrds the GOP, now they have swung solidly to the Democrats. Examples are Montgomery County, Long Island NY, Weschester County NY, both outside of NYC, Marin County outside of San Francisco.

  Working clas/poor white- these suburbs have become more working class over the years as working class whites moved out of the cities into certain older suburbs. They have a GOP lean, but their reasoning to vote GOP is based on more social issues. This demographic also lives in semi rural areas as well. Examples are Citrus Heights CA outside of Sacramento, Rio Linda CA, also a Sacramento suburb, Grove City OH outside of Columbus. The St Louis suburbs south of that city, the suburbs south of Millwaukee as well.

  NEW SUBURBS-
     Edge City- These tend to have a GOP lean, but are more diverse than people would think them to be, and also have many singles as well that vote Democratic, but again, some edge cities are solidly GOP, some are quite mixed. Some examples are Roseville CA, LIvermore CA, Freemont CA, Mesa AZ, Independence MO, Aroua CO and Plano TX

     Bedroom Community- These are still what most people think of when they think of suburbs. Very solidly GOP. Just about any new development not part of a edge city. A example would be(though its becoming more of a edge city) St Charles County MO, Rocklin CA, Folsom CA.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

For some reason, the new suburbs are vastly overrepresented in government.

[NorthernDog]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I live in such an area and this is what I see:
A lot of tax money goes into the cities and disappears-we don't see any problems being solved, just politicos bragging about how much (other people's) money they are spending; the suburbs want the independence of using their own autos and are reluctant to spend $ on more public transportation that is very high cost; and also there's a perception that Democrats are lenient on law-breakers because when there's a dispute with police they often give equal credence to the criminal as they give the cops.
(Same philosophy shows up in issues of national defense).

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In the U.K the strongest Tory areas tend to be be suburbs(eg. Surrey) while the strongest Labour areas are poor, rural, coal mining areas(eg. County Durham)
Inner Cities are also strongly Labour, while the Liberals do best in liberal suburbs and big rural seats.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For some reason, the new suburbs are vastly overrepresented in government.

That might be because the new suburbs vote GOP and the GOP don't want to piss off their base.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

That might be because the new suburbs vote GOP and the GOP don't want to piss off their base.

I'm sure that's true, but the votes of the new suburbs count a lot more than other people's votes to begin with, because of higher turnout in the new suburbs.

I live in an old industrial city that had very low turnout in the recent governor election, because the county (run by new suburban types) decided to move the polling place without telling anyone beforehand. So we don't have a whole lot of power down here.

The media is also strongly biased in favor of the politics and passions of the new suburbs (their complaints to the contrary notwithstanding). They don't understand the "other" America where the rest of us live.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is that legal?!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a serious problem. Being marginalised leaves people angry. Not a good thing for democracy.
But what can be done about an all-powerful media?

[DarthKosh]

For some reason, the new suburbs are vastly overrepresented in government.

Because that's where a lot of people live.

[JNB]

  In Sacramento, I lived in what was a mostly white, working class suburb. It was certainly Republican leaning, voted for Bush by more than 10% in 2000, but didnt produce the margins the newer suburbs did, but at the same time, at least in 2000(The real estate boom in CA since that time has somwhat changed the economic status in the area I used to live in) going though the areas I lived in would certainly bust the myth that people who vote Republcian are well off.

[NorthernDog]

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.

Yeah, that's part of it.  We had a situation here in MN where the city-based Democrats were saying flat-out they would not improve the roads in the suburbs because they want people to live in the densley populated urban core.  Eventually they paid for this attitude by losing control of the state's lower chamber and governorship. Now they complain that all the new road projects are in the "rich suburbs".  

[nclib]

Newer neighborhoods tend to involve higher income families.  They tend to vote for positions favoring a free market and try to protect their kids from immorality.

Outer suburbs are lily white and higher-income, suggesting that they'd vote GOP.
But please explain why they would be more concerned with morality than the average voter?

[dazzleman]

Often, higher income lily white areas vote Democratic.  I live in that type of area, and my town voted narrowly for Gore in the last presidential election.  Many other towns in the region did the same, some by larger margins, while others voted for Bush.  So there is no clear pattern.

Much depends upon the region of the country, and how the social issue plays.  People who aren't particularly worried about where their next meal is coming from are free to focus on non-pocketbook issues.

Also, isolation in a lily white suburb often makes people more tolerant in theory than those who are confronted with racial issues on a daily basis.  People in lily white suburbs can trumpet their "tolerance" by voting Democratic even while the closest non-white person is miles away.  But believe me, if anybody suggested that their schools be regionalized and their kids bussed to school in black neighborhoods, these "tolerant" people would change their tune very quickly.

The suburban vote in certain parts of the country swung solidly toward the Democrats during the 1990s, so I think it's a mistake to consider these areas to automatically be bastions of support for the Republicans.

[emergingDmajority1]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

heh, sounds like my town. Lilywhite and upper middle class. Gore took my county in a landslide in 04(as did Lautenberg). It helped to have some minority enclaves, but the area I live in is very closed off and detached.

Morris county went heavily to Bush, and they're very rich, and very segregated.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Is that legal?!

Supposedly it isn't, but they did it anyway.

In Kentucky, changes in polling places are supposed to be announced in the county's "newspaper of record". For this county, the "newspaper of record" is a weekly with only a small readership.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DarthKosh]

Is that legal?!

Supposedly it isn't, but they did it anyway.

In Kentucky, changes in polling places are supposed to be announced in the county's "newspaper of record". For this county, the "newspaper of record" is a weekly with only a small readership.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If it was illegal then they would not be able to do it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Ah... an innocent...

[DarthKosh]

Ah... an innocent...

Ah a paranoid.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm a bloody minded cynic actually

[dazzleman]

One of the most striking electoral developments in the 1990s was the capture by the Democrats of the upper middle class suburban votes in some sections of the country, such as the northeast, the midwest and the west coast.

These are areas that had voted pretty strongly Republican on a consistent basis going back a long way.

Does anybody want to make any predictions on how these areas will vote in 2004 for president?  The suburban vote could make the difference in states like Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois and California.

Will national security issues, and the threat of Democratic tax increases (even people just scraping by in these expensive areas would be considered "rich" under the Democratic tax plans) turn these people back to the Republicans, or will they stick with the Democrats for other reasons, perhaps such as social issues?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Rich suburbs will be among the few places to go Republican in 2004. The trend towards Republicans in rural counties is history.

[dazzleman]

Rich suburbs will be among the few places to go Republican in 2004. The trend towards Republicans in rural counties is history.

What is the basis for your opinion?