Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[Virginiá]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[PoliticalShelter]

Probably the biggest reason why democrats will be able to compete in these sunbelt suburbs in a post trump era, will be because of things like gentrification and taking on a character that could be said to be more tradionally urban.

[P. Clodius Pulcher did nothing wrong]

Muh demographics never fail

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Interesting focus that brings the GOP rise in the mid/late-20th century into greater clarity.

[Virginiá]

Muh demographics never fail

Technically, everyone falls into some sort of demographic, and since winning elections is all about winning over people, demographics do indeed never fail

But in all seriousness, the article is more than that. Demographics in what is probably the sense you are speaking was barely a blip in the article.

[RINO Tom]

Muh demographics never fail

Technically, everyone falls into some sort of demographic, and since winning elections is all about winning over people, demographics do indeed never fail

But in all seriousness, the article is more than that. Demographics in what is probably the sense you are speaking was barely a blip in the article.

It didn't get much "screentime," but the article literally says it might be the most important change of all, so hardly a blip ... and I agree with the author.  37%?!  That could flip tons of counties alone, and it only takes a TINY peeling off of former Republican voters turned off by the GOP's cultural positions to make it look like there was some massive switch.

Anyway, I can't help but feel this was at least an unintentional retort to the views that Timmy and I have conveyed that chasing after moderate, affluent Whites in suburban districts who are turned off by Trump is a fool's errand for Democrats, so I will clarify.  I have never said that the GOP doesn't have a "suburbs" problem or that these suburbs have changed drastically both in how their inhabitants view the world and even who those inhabitants are.  However, that's not the narrative that takes place; people ONLY talk about how formerly Republican suburban counties now vote Democratic and lazily look to what the parties could have done and how they could have changed to make this happen.  In essence, they're trying to figure out why the TYPES of voters who initially favored Republicans in the suburbs (wealthy, White, college educated) now seemingly favor Democrats.  AND THEY DON'T.  LOL, the article pretty much puts the inference there for all of us to see, but today's outer suburbs and exurbs are serving the same purpose that inner suburbs did in the 1950s, and they're still very Republican.  Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

[Virginiá]

Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

I would counter that while what you're saying is probably happening to a degree, I also think that the current and possibly next generation are probably breeding a type of suburban voter who may just be somewhat less Republican, and that will be the case until the next generation produces voters that reverse that trend. This is the Millennial/GenX/GenZ case I've made in this argument several times, so I won't go anymore into it, as it is probably safe to say we have both chosen our camps for the time being.

To be fair, I actually did think of you briefly when I decided to post this article (your nickname has basically become synonymous with suburban in my head), but this article was front-page Politico today and I really enjoyed it so as is usual with articles I like, I posted it

[Technocracy Timmy]

Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

I would counter that while what you're saying is probably happening to a degree, I also think that the current and possibly next generation are probably breeding a type of suburban voter who may just be somewhat less Republican, and that will be the case until the next generation produces voters that reverse that trend. This is the Millennial/GenX/GenZ case I've made in this argument several times, so I won't go anymore into it, as it is probably safe to say we have both chosen our camps for the time being.

To be fair, I actually did think of you briefly when I decided to post this article (your nickname has basically become synonymous with suburban in my head), but this article was front-page Politico today and I really enjoyed it so as is usual with articles I like, I posted it

What about the migration patterns of the Silent and Boomer cohorts? I'd imagine they'll be able to keep the sunbelt (at least FL and AZ) competitive the next few cycles for the GOP as they retire to states like those. Old people aren't moving to the north...too cold

[Virginiá]

What about the migration patterns of the Silent and Boomer cohorts? I'd imagine they'll be able to keep the sunbelt (at least FL and AZ) competitive the next few cycles for the GOP as they retire to states like those. Old people aren't moving to the north...too cold

That's true, although I would wonder what the exact effect might be. As I understand it, some of the younger baby boomers, the ones that grew up under Nixon, tend to skew a little Democratic. Granted, that's only a slice of boomers overall, but these particular boomers the ones who would be probably be migrating the most over the next few cycles, right?

Actually come to think of it, I don't know what ages old people tend to move. Those boomers are around 58 - 64 right now I think (off the top of my head)

[Nyvin]

It'll be interesting to see if the Twin Cities suburbs in MN trend Dem fast enough to offset the rural trend in the rest of the state to the GOP.   It's kind of like two counteracting forces pushing against each other there.

[NOVA Green]

Thanks Virginia!

Really cool post/thread as usual....

One of the items not yet discussed is that Al Gore was the first Democrat to win the "Knowledge Workers" occupational category, at a time where that segment of the population was rapidly expanding....

It's part of the reason why places like Santa Clara County California (Silicon Valley). Washington County Oregon (Silicon Forest), and elsewhere in similar communities started to swing hard against the Republican Party.

Granted, this is somewhat peripheral to discussions of suburban America as a general topic, but needless to say, the vast majority of these workers were concentrated in fast-growing suburban counties throughout the United States.

Now, here is a prescient article from the Atlantic way back in 2000, that identifies the exact same problem that Hillary Clinton ran into in 2016 by trying to maximize gains among relatively upper-income voters and "soccer moms", while ignoring "Joe Six Pack"

https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/polipro/pp2000-05-17.htm

[RINO Tom]

Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

I would counter that while what you're saying is probably happening to a degree, I also think that the current and possibly next generation are probably breeding a type of suburban voter who may just be somewhat less Republican, and that will be the case until the next generation produces voters that reverse that trend. This is the Millennial/GenX/GenZ case I've made in this argument several times, so I won't go anymore into it, as it is probably safe to say we have both chosen our camps for the time being.

To be fair, I actually did think of you briefly when I decided to post this article (your nickname has basically become synonymous with suburban in my head), but this article was front-page Politico today and I really enjoyed it so as is usual with articles I like, I posted it

Good points on the first paragraph, and I would be perfectly willing to agree that "it will be interesting."  I just think too many people who follow politics like it's their favorite sport are looking for realignments in places they might not happen because we're aware of the past and we think it'd be interesting or exciting to see one happen in real time, so we "cheer for it," so to speak.  Most people I know didn't see that much different about the 2016 election than the 2012 election: a Republican rich guy vs. a "cosmopolitan" liberal.  There were obviously big differences, but for every person who thought, "Wow, what has happened to these parties??" I think there was at LEAST one who thought this was business as usual with a ruder Republican.

Haha, that's funny about my username, though, because I was born in a river city of about 400,000 (area) and now live in an incredibly liberal university town of 150,000 (area).   However, I can see why "RINO" would suggest suburban voter these days, and my politics are somewhat similar to many suburban areas.

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

It'll be interesting to see if the Twin Cities suburbs in MN trend Dem fast enough to offset the rural trend in the rest of the state to the GOP.   It's kind of like two counteracting forces pushing against each other there.

I certainly hope that that is just a one off Trump phenomenon and not the new reality. Seeing the Iron Range that close was terrible to see.

[Technocracy Timmy]

What about the migration patterns of the Silent and Boomer cohorts? I'd imagine they'll be able to keep the sunbelt (at least FL and AZ) competitive the next few cycles for the GOP as they retire to states like those. Old people aren't moving to the north...too cold

That's true, although I would wonder what the exact effect might be. As I understand it, some of the younger baby boomers, the ones that grew up under Nixon, tend to skew a little Democratic. Granted, that's only a slice of boomers overall, but these particular boomers the ones who would be probably be migrating the most over the next few cycles, right?

Actually come to think of it, I don't know what ages old people tend to move. Those boomers are around 58 - 64 right now I think (off the top of my head)

True, but remember that 14% of Democrats aged 50-64 have defected to the GOP during the past year and a half so that Democratic dent from the youth that grew up during Nixon might have vanished. Source.

[Sumner 1868]

What about the migration patterns of the Silent and Boomer cohorts? I'd imagine they'll be able to keep the sunbelt (at least FL and AZ) competitive the next few cycles for the GOP as they retire to states like those. Old people aren't moving to the north...too cold

That's true, although I would wonder what the exact effect might be. As I understand it, some of the younger baby boomers, the ones that grew up under Nixon, tend to skew a little Democratic. Granted, that's only a slice of boomers overall, but these particular boomers the ones who would be probably be migrating the most over the next few cycles, right?

Actually come to think of it, I don't know what ages old people tend to move. Those boomers are around 58 - 64 right now I think (off the top of my head)

It's actually the oldest Boomers who skewer Democratic. The youngest ones came to age under Ford and Carter and were heavily responsible for the 1994 GOP wave.

[PragmaticPopulist]

If this article is right and the trend continues, it open a whole new can of worms for Democrats. Winning suburbs in the sunbelt would make Arizona, Georgia, and Texas tossups, and potentially make South Carolina a Leans R state.

[I’m not Stu]

If this article is right and the trend continues, it open a whole new can of worms for Democrats. Winning suburbs in the sunbelt would make Arizona, Georgia, and Texas tossups, and potentially make South Carolina a Leans R state.

Yes. Trump didn't win Texas by as much as I would have expected.

[BushKerry04]

Yeah, and Clinton was going to win in 2016.

[Virginiá]

Yeah, and Clinton was going to win in 2016.

You could use that as an excuse for anything political-related, no? It's a good way to avoid discussion on the topic but doesn't really prove anything and a logical fallacy as well.

[Young Conservative]

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

[Oldiesfreak1854]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Young Conservative]

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.

Feel free to believe this, but Rubio, Pence, or Cruz would win this district by double digits.

[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.

Feel free to believe this, but Rubio, Pence, or Cruz would win this district by double digits.

Then why didn't Handel?

[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.

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.