Suburban vote in 2020

[BaldEagle1991]

Any guesses on how the suburban vote will go in 2020?

[mvd10]

About the same as the nation as a whole (suburbs were R+3 in 2012 and 2016 though I suspect Trump and Romney did better in different suburbs). So the dems will win them by 4-6 if they don't nominate a complete idiot. But don't worry, Magic Mike, Terrific Tom or Mythical Marco will win the suburbs back in 2024 after the unavoidable leftie Democratic Trifecta annoys hard-working suburban voters with higher taxes. To go forward the Republicans only need to go back .

[Bismarck]

Oh God now we're gonna get RINO Tom coming in here to tell us about how Jefferson County, Missouri; Livingston County, MI; and Berks County PA are all just as suburban as Chester, PA; Cobb, GA; and Orange, CA.

Why would they not be? If anything the latter counties you mentioned are becoming more urban, with the exception of Chester.

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

I think Trump will do even worse in the suburbs than he did in 2016. The bottom hasn't completely fallen out for him in these areas, yet.

[MT Treasurer]

Even if the Senate is 52R-48D after 2018, all the Democrats need to win in 2020 is two of GA, ME, AK, CO, MT and NC, and those states should be very winnable for them, especially if they win the presidency.

Who knows how 2022 will turn out. I think GA, NC and AZ would be the only truly vulnerable Republican Senate seats under a Democratic president, but unfortunately there isn't even one good pick-up opportunity in a Democratic-held state for them. The House could flip back to the Rs in 2022, but many of those suburban seats are trending D in the long term anyway so it wouldn't be a slam dunk by any means, lol.

[RINO Tom]

Oh God now we're gonna get RINO Tom coming in here to tell us about how Jefferson County, Missouri; Livingston County, MI; and Berks County PA are all just as suburban as Chester, PA; Cobb, GA; and Orange, CA.

As I was driving through the Chicago *suburbs* on my way back home Sunday, I actually wondered when the next creepy reference to me in one of your posts would be, LOL.  Tuesday, not bad!  Probably a few I missed and don't care to find, though.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Oh God now we're gonna get RINO Tom coming in here to tell us about how Jefferson County, Missouri; Livingston County, MI; and Berks County PA are all just as suburban as Chester, PA; Cobb, GA; and Orange, CA.

Why would they not be? If anything the latter counties you mentioned are becoming more urban, with the exception of Chester.

It depends. To a Californian, suburban means single family homes on a grid and apartments under 4 stories, semi-walkable strip mall, and a density of 10,000 ish people per square mile. To an Atlantan, urban means a handful of office-park style skyscrapers scattered amongst single family homes that seem like they're in the middle of a forest. To me, urban means miles and miles of 7 story apartment buildings, decent rapid transit, and densities exceeding 20,000 people per square mile.

[RINO Tom]

it worked!

Not really, as I didn't post any of the stuff you said in your original drivel, LOL.

Get a new hobby.

[pbrower2a]

As we must be reminded, some parts of Suburbia (the outer fringe) still have rural characteristics and low costs that allow low-cost government. Some of the older suburbs are by contrast increasingly urban in character as infrastructure becomes expensive to maintain  or even replace (like sewers at the end of their service lives and streets that require upgrades) and high-density housing (apartments) supplant low-density housing. Part of the Democratic trend may not be so much that 'classic' Suburbia that resembles the immediate post-WWII suburbs are going liberal as that the suburbs of the years just after WWII are themselves becoming old and often as decrepit as parts of the nearby cities.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I predict suburbs will vote no more Democratic than they did in 2016, because I don't see the Democratic candidate being as good a candidate for the suburbs as Hillary was.

[libertpaulian]

As we must be reminded, some parts of Suburbia (the outer fringe) still have rural characteristics and low costs that allow low-cost government. Some of the older suburbs are by contrast increasingly urban in character as infrastructure becomes expensive to maintain  or even replace (like sewers at the end of their service lives and streets that require upgrades) and high-density housing (apartments) supplant low-density housing. Part of the Democratic trend may not be so much that 'classic' Suburbia that resembles the immediate post-WWII suburbs are going liberal as that the suburbs of the years just after WWII are themselves becoming old and often as decrepit as parts of the nearby cities.

Yup.  Gary, Indiana is an excellent example of this.  It's a "micro-city" in Indiana that also happens to be part of the Chicago Metro area and it's suffered horrendous urban decay over the past 50 years.

[Pericles]

I predict suburbs will vote no more Democratic than they did in 2016, because I don't see the Democratic candidate being as good a candidate for the suburbs as Hillary was.

Hillary Clinton was a pretty weak candidate, she only did well there because she wasn't Trump. The bottom hasn't fallen out for the GOP yet, they will do worse in 2020.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

I predict suburbs will vote no more Democratic than they did in 2016, because I don't see the Democratic candidate being as good a candidate for the suburbs as Hillary was.

Not being Donald Trump should be good enough to them.

I'm not so sure, since Dems could very well nominate a far-left candidate, who would not play well in more suburbs since they're upper-middle class at least.

Any Democratic win in 2020 will have to come by either increasing margins/turnout in big cities, reducing margins/turnout in rural areas, or demographic changes, or all three, of course.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even if the Senate is 52R-48D after 2018, all the Democrats need to win in 2020 is two of GA, ME, AK, CO, MT and NC, and those states should be very winnable for them, especially if they win the presidency.

Who knows how 2022 will turn out. I think GA, NC and AZ would be the only truly vulnerable Republican Senate seats under a Democratic president, but unfortunately there isn't even one good pick-up opportunity in a Democratic-held state for them. The House could flip back to the Rs in 2022, but many of those suburban seats are trending D in the long term anyway so it wouldn't be a slam dunk by any means, lol.

I don't get all this talk of AK and MT being singled out as being vulnerable on the level of GA, ME, NC. Both have incumbents, who in the absence of scandal, should be fine in states that more than likely will vote for the Republican ticket in 2020 and more likely by double digits than not.

[Lord Admirale]

If Trump is POTUS, Swing D, if Pence is POTUS, Swing R.

[Beet]

I don't get all this talk of AK and MT being singled out as being vulnerable on the level of GA, ME, NC. Both have incumbents, who in the absence of scandal, should be fine in states that more than likely will vote for the Republican ticket in 2020 and more likely by double digits than not.

AK and especially MT have a long history of electing Democrats in down ballot races even as Republicans won those states easily at the presidential level. Yes, “polarization” is certainly a stronger force now than it was 15 or 20 years ago, but someone like Bullock could definitely beat Daines (who is not a particularly strong candidate in any way). Daines has his work cut out for him, especially if Tester easily wins reelection as most pundits and experts believe. I'm not so sure about AK, the state is trending Democratic but Berkowitz strikes me as an overrated candidate. That said, in a D wave Sullivan could certainly go down.  

Bullock nearly lost re-election even though he was an insanely popular incumbent. I can't see him winning anything else, unless he runs for president.

[dw93]

If there's a recession in 2019 or 2020 (and I think there's a good chance of one hitting), it'll trend D. If we have a mild one next year and the economy recovers through 2019 and 2020, it'll trend R. Trump thus far has pushed  a pretty standard Republican agenda, and because of that, I think white suburbanites will put there dislike of Trump's personality aside and pull the lever for the GOP. The question is, with Trump pushing a run of the mill Republican agenda, will those Blue Collar Obama/Trump voters stick with Trump or vote Dem in 2020?

[MT Treasurer]

Bullock nearly lost re-election even though he was an insanely popular incumbent. I can't see him winning anything else, unless he runs for president.

He won by 4 percentage points, that's not what I would call “nearly losing reelection”. But yeah, it was a much closer race than most pundits and experts expected, and IIRC I was ridiculed for my Bullock +3 prediction (I predicted 49% Bullock, 46% Gianforte, 5% Dunlap) because everyone thought he would win by more than that. Bullock was never really going to win by double digits or something like that, and I never understood why some people predicted that (and why they predict a similar landslide result for Tester). Not every Montana Republican is a Todd Akin-tier candidate and Republicans actually have a relatively high floor in the state, lol.

[Virginiá]

If there's a recession in 2019 or 2020 (and I think there's a good chance of one hitting), it'll trend D. If we have a mild one next year and the economy recovers through 2019 and 2020, it'll trend R. Trump thus far has pushed  a pretty standard Republican agenda, and because of that, I think white suburbanites will put there dislike of Trump's personality aside and pull the lever for the GOP. The question is, with Trump pushing a run of the mill Republican agenda, will those Blue Collar Obama/Trump voters stick with Trump or vote Dem in 2020?

But scandal and dislike of his personality is what is causing the backlash in the first place. Disapproval of Trump is rooted in scandal and character issues, as opposed to past presidents, where significant policy disagreements tended to drive disapproval. I don't see why this would change. If anything, Virginia has shown us that Obama's unpopularity kept Democratic trends in suburbia suppressed during his presidency, and now Trump's deeply corrosive nature has supercharged something that was probably going to happen anyway.

If a recession occurred and rebounded in time for 2020, at best I could see it returning partly or fully to where it was before the recession. But not more than that, because the issue (Trump himself and an increasingly socially conservative GOP) that caused them to shift towards Democrats is still fully in effect.