The GOP's suburbia problem

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever. Trump's extreme positions on immigration, issues with women, skepticism on climate politics, brash personality, and ties to white nationalism are turning people off. The partisan split is now a cosmopolitan/parochial divide becoming all about identity politics and culture wars rather than policy.

Trump isn't extreme on immigration. The democrats are. Polling consistently shows that no other issue has such a huge divide between the political establishment (and the media's idea of moderate) and the voters. This trend also exists quite clearly in Europe and has led to unprecedented success for nationalist parties in recent years. Trump won voters who listed immigration as their top issue by an almost 2:1 ratio according to CNN's exit poll, making it his best issue. http://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls

One survey gave 7 options ranging from most liberal (option 1) to most conservative (option 7) on various issues. On immigration, the most popular option was #7 with a full 1/4 of the electorate saying that they would enact a moratorium on all immigration and deport all illegals. Options 5,6, and 7 combine to form more than half the electorate, despite the democrat establishment and republican establishment (pre-Trump, anyway) being closest to options 2 and 4, respectively. That's right, as of 2015, most Americans were to the right of the average republican politician. That's the reason why Trump was able to eviscerate a plethora of experienced primary opponents. In the end, only fellow immigration hardliner Ted Cruz could even compete with him. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/15/9159117/donald-trump-moderate
https://www.scribd.com/document/345225481/Ideological-Innocence-Ahler

While Trump's disregard for the environment annoys me, climate change is borderline irrelevant for all but hardcore activists with apocalyptic predictions that will never come true and the GOP was already the party of business over nature before Trump. I think democrats would do well to simply focus on pollution rather than climate change, as nearly everyone agrees pollution is bad. Republicans could also enact policies that incentivize improved cleanliness and efficient technology (like applying the successful cap and trade program to carbon emissions) without harming workers very much.

I absolutely agree that his personality plays a huge role in his high disapproval. A substantial amount of people did vote for him despite not liking him and even saying his temperament was un-presidential. Trumpism without Trump (likely put forward by someone like Senator Tom Cotton) could easily outperform Trump's 2016 victory.

The extent of his ties to white nationalism is that President Trump had the audacity to condemn political violence no matter who it's directed at (which apparently is unacceptable in the current year) and note the fact that they had a permit to be there, which antifa did not. That and he only disavowed David Duke like 23 times, but not forcefully enough I guess.

Identity politics is the inevitable result of a diverse society. It's implicitly recognized by both sides whenever they talk about the black community. They understand that a rich black suburbanite still cares about the struggles faced by fellow blacks in the inner cities. That's why republicans mindlessly repeat slogans about the "government plantation" rather than trying to appeal to the sizable black middle class on the same grounds as they would whites in the same socioeconomic situation (with tax cuts). Really, every race shows this kind of solidarity except for whites, although that is beginning to change.

[OneJ]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever. Trump's extreme positions on immigration, issues with women, skepticism on climate politics, brash personality, and ties to white nationalism are turning people off. The partisan split is now a cosmopolitan/parochial divide becoming all about identity politics and culture wars rather than policy.

Trump isn't extreme on immigration.

[Pennsylvania Deplorable]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever. Trump's extreme positions on immigration, issues with women, skepticism on climate politics, brash personality, and ties to white nationalism are turning people off. The partisan split is now a cosmopolitan/parochial divide becoming all about identity politics and culture wars rather than policy.

Trump isn't extreme on immigration.

By all accounts, he is right where every republican should be and is closer to the views of most independents than the average democrat as well. The media narrative that he was extreme on immigration is simply incorrect, according to exit polls and single issue polling. See my links.

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever. Trump's extreme positions on immigration, issues with women, skepticism on climate politics, brash personality, and ties to white nationalism are turning people off. The partisan split is now a cosmopolitan/parochial divide becoming all about identity politics and culture wars rather than policy.

Trump isn't extreme on immigration.

By all accounts, he is right where every republican should be and is closer to the views of most independents than the average democrat as well. The media narrative that he was extreme on immigration is simply incorrect, according to exit polls and single issue polling. See my links.

A country where 65% of Americans support DACA is not a country where one can call Trump center-right on immigration.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever. Trump's extreme positions on immigration, issues with women, skepticism on climate politics, brash personality, and ties to white nationalism are turning people off. The partisan split is now a cosmopolitan/parochial divide becoming all about identity politics and culture wars rather than policy.

Trump isn't extreme on immigration.

By all accounts, he is right where every republican should be and is closer to the views of most independents than the average democrat as well. The media narrative that he was extreme on immigration is simply incorrect, according to exit polls and single issue polling. See my links.

A country where 65% of Americans support DACA is not a country where one can call Trump center-right on immigration.

Trump may be a bigot, but I don't recall anyone ever saying he actually wants DACA protections gone entirely. Btw Pennsylvania Deplorable the link to the paper from the Vox article you cited is no longer accessible.
http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/papers/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

[Virginiá]

Trump may be a bigot, but I don't recall anyone ever saying he actually wants DACA protections gone entirely. Btw Pennsylvania Deplorable the link to the paper from the Vox article you cited is no longer accessible.
http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/papers/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

Even if he is technically for it, he's the one who is ending the executive action (albeit over threats from state Republican AGs, sure) thus triggering this crisis for them, and further, he's the one who is making it impossible to get a bill through Congress by demanding a bunch of conservative immigration priorities that would not only deliver the wall, but slash immigration rates drastically, probably hurting the country in the long run. Realistically, DACA for the Wall alone is enough. The wall is massively expensive, ineffective at its stated goal, damaging to the environment but most of all: a huge symbolic win for him. He is just too greedy and too careless with the lives of dreamers to allow a deal to happen.

Point is, the way he is treating this situation, whether or not he says he is for DACA is irrelevant right now. In practice, he is against it and perfectly willing to deport them without breaking stride. After watching this whole song and dance play out, it's hard to believe he is actually serious about wanting a solution for the dreamers.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Trump may be a bigot, but I don't recall anyone ever saying he actually wants DACA protections gone entirely. Btw Pennsylvania Deplorable the link to the paper from the Vox article you cited is no longer accessible.
http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/papers/ahler_broockman_ideological_innocence.pdf

Even if he is technically for it, he's the one who is ending the executive action (albeit over threats from state Republican AGs, sure) thus triggering this crisis for them, and further, he's the one who is making it impossible to get a bill through Congress by demanding a bunch of conservative immigration priorities that would not only deliver the wall, but slash immigration rates drastically, probably hurting the country in the long run. Realistically, DACA for the Wall alone is enough. The wall is massively expensive, ineffective at its stated goal, damaging to the environment but most of all: a huge symbolic win for him. He is just too greedy and too careless with the lives of dreamers to allow a deal to happen.

Point is, the way he is treating this situation, whether or not he says he is for DACA is irrelevant right now. In practice, he is against it and perfectly willing to deport them without breaking stride. After watching this whole song and dance play out, it's hard to believe he is actually serious about wanting a solution for the dreamers.

Thanks for clarifying. It's hard to imagine Trump handling most political issues tactfully, even if his views happen to align with a large chunk of the electorate.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

[Suburbia]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

[Sadader]

The Republican Party has shifted to the left on economics. Ronald Reagan worked to reform the tax code by lowering rates and substantially reducing deductions and corporate loopholes. Reagan and the GOP embraced a strong dollar, free trade, and fewer regulations. Trump has embraced fewer regulations, but his tax cut didn't do a whole lot to make the tax code flatter and he's also embraced a weak dollar, protectionism, and corporate welfare. On top of that, the GOP didn't repeal and replace Obamacare as promised.

old thread, but having any stance on where the dollar should be is complete economic illiteracy, and it doesn’t seem that Trump’s economc team has any objective anway (and rightly so), aside from Mnuchin’s gaffes on it.

[RINO Tom]

Bumped to inform RINO Tom of another epic ‘burb-stomping

You're gettin' lazy, big man.  The only thing I have posted in this entire thread:

The GOP problem is that it will end up like Alabama senate race on election night were the rural turnout wasn't as expected and they run out of votes to early in the election night. GOP needs to remember that not all large counties are like Wayne and St louis (city). Most are gaining population and the margin continues to become more Democratic soon there won't be enough votes in the rural areas to make up for the lost ground.    

There aren't enough rural voters in virtually any state to drown out suburban and urban voters, despite the urban/rural narrative.  The vast majority of GOP voters in virtually every state aren't rural... for now.  They're well on their way to ing that up completely, though.

[RINO Tom]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

[uti2]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

[RINO Tom]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

Doesn't matter now, does it?  Trump is perfectly fine with the setup and even seems to take a strange pride in it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

Doesn't matter now, does it?  Trump is perfectly fine with the setup and even seems to take a strange pride in it.

Reagan basically won the same coalition as Nixon.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

Doesn't matter now, does it?  Trump is perfectly fine with the setup and even seems to take a strange pride in it.

Reagan basically won the same coalition as Nixon.

Well when two candidates win 49 states apiece, there's obviously going to be considerable overlap. Perhaps the point is that their coalitions were markedly different in their first Presidential wins, which I don't really think is that disputable.

Thats cause Reagan won by 10 points , Nixon only won by 1 point


Also the correct word to say is Reagan Coalition was an extension of Nixon's


- A South Western + Suburban Coalition


Thats where both their Coalitions main strength was

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

Doesn't matter now, does it?  Trump is perfectly fine with the setup and even seems to take a strange pride in it.

Reagan basically won the same coalition as Nixon.

Well when two candidates win 49 states apiece, there's obviously going to be considerable overlap. Perhaps the point is that their coalitions were markedly different in their first Presidential wins, which I don't really think is that disputable.

Thats cause Reagan won by 10 points , Nixon only won by 1 point


Also the correct word to say is Reagan Coalition was an extension of Nixon's


- A South Western + Suburban Coalition


Thats where both their Coalitions main strength was

Yes, that is what I was saying.

There is an irony here, Reagan's policies were very much driven by a western rebellion against the Eastern establishment. "The Sagebrush Rebellion" is the term that I have heard used, which was revolting against land use policies, EPA and energy regulations (including quotas) at the same time there was the tax revolt and the weariness of the middle class facing the crushing impact of stagflation. All of these economic conditions were made worse by policies championed by Nixon and Washington elite.

At the same time the rising demographics powering the GOP were the same, Sunbelt suburbia and a shift towards a more Ethnics+Germans+Southerners and away from traditional Republican demographics (Pre-existing declines that just continued over time). Nixon did very well with middle class Irish and Italian precincts in New York City, while he slid considerably compared to to his own 1960 campaign in the Upper East Side. Nixon also represented the supplanting of GOP strength in the North coming from non-Yankee whites (Germans, Scots-Irish, Former Southerners, Irish, and Dutch, who had at one point or another all been Democrats), as opposed to the traditional GOP base in the North of Yankee whites.

Yet all of these same people were decimated by the effects of Nixon's policies, the same Nixon they elected and thus the same people who put him office fueled a revolution against basically their own guy. Of course we need to acknowledge that Nixon hated the establishment, but always craved to be accepted by it and when he wasn't, it drove his insecurities.

Reagan's strength was very similar, he was even more appealing to those middle class Irish,  Italian and ethnic areas, he was more appealing to rural Non-Yankee whites in the North (he was an FDR Democrat from the Midwest) and he was far more effective at breaking into the south. He also did even worse in places like Vermont and other areas, continuing all the pre-existing trends that started in the 1950's with Eisenhower and was only momentarily halted by Kennedy. He was from the West, was not part of the establishment and could easily personify the sagebrush rebellion in living form.


Trump is the evolution of the Bush coalition and just like Reagan's nomination was powered by a base that was angry at the establishment they had held up as their champions a decade prior, Trump epitomized the anger at the Bush's and road it to the nomination. Even while doing so, he was being supported by the demographic elements that Bush had taken a lot of strength from as well or Bush had cultivated as a key part of his coalition.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The problem with the GOP is that Trumpism has no suburban appeal whatsoever.

Wrong.

This. A bulk of Trump's support comes from the suburbs.

True of every Republican. The problem is that Trump gets less strong support there than any since Dole or even Goldwater.

This is what's key ... no Republican wins an election - in literally any state in the union - without very strong numbers in the suburbs, where a majority of the candidate's votes are naturally going to come (supplemented with SOME urban support).  There simply aren't enough rural voters, period.  It's simple math.  Trump doesn't seem to understand that or, more likely, just doesn't care.

The current electoral map was created by Bush, not Trump, it was Bush's decision to reach out to rural evangelicals in contrast to Mccain trying to double down on the suburbs in 2000.

Doesn't matter now, does it?  Trump is perfectly fine with the setup and even seems to take a strange pride in it.

Reagan basically won the same coalition as Nixon.

Well when two candidates win 49 states apiece, there's obviously going to be considerable overlap. Perhaps the point is that their coalitions were markedly different in their first Presidential wins, which I don't really think is that disputable.

Thats cause Reagan won by 10 points , Nixon only won by 1 point


Also the correct word to say is Reagan Coalition was an extension of Nixon's


- A South Western + Suburban Coalition


Thats where both their Coalitions main strength was

Yes, that is what I was saying.

There is an irony here, Reagan's policies were very much driven by a western rebellion against the Eastern establishment. "The Sagebrush Rebellion" is the term that I have heard used, which was revolting against land use policies, EPA and energy regulations (including quotas) at the same time there was the tax revolt and the weariness of the middle class facing the crushing impact of stagflation. All of these economic conditions were made worse by policies championed by Nixon and Washington elite.

At the same time the rising demographics powering the GOP were the same, Sunbelt suburbia and a shift towards a more Ethnics+Germans+Southerners and away from traditional Republican demographics (Pre-existing declines that just continued over time). Nixon did very well with middle class Irish and Italian precincts in New York City, while he slid considerably compared to to his own 1960 campaign in the Upper East Side. Nixon also represented the supplanting of GOP strength in the North coming from non-Yankee whites (Germans, Scots-Irish, Former Southerners, Irish, and Dutch, who had at one point or another all been Democrats), as opposed to the traditional GOP base in the North of Yankee whites.

Yet all of these same people were decimated by the effects of Nixon's policies, the same Nixon they elected and thus the same people who put him office fueled a revolution against basically their own guy. Of course we need to acknowledge that Nixon hated the establishment, but always craved to be accepted by it and when he wasn't, it drove his insecurities.

Reagan's strength was very similar, he was even more appealing to those middle class Irish,  Italian and ethnic areas, he was more appealing to rural Non-Yankee whites in the North (he was an FDR Democrat from the Midwest) and he was far more effective at breaking into the south. He also did even worse in places like Vermont and other areas, continuing all the pre-existing trends that started in the 1950's with Eisenhower and was only momentarily halted by Kennedy. He was from the West, was not part of the establishment and could easily personify the sagebrush rebellion in living form.


Trump is the evolution of the Bush coalition and just like Reagan's nomination was powered by a base that was angry at the establishment they had held up as their champions a decade prior, Trump epitomized the anger at the Bush's and road it to the nomination. Even while doing so, he was being supported by the demographic elements that Bush had taken a lot of strength from as well or Bush had cultivated as a key part of his coalition.

But Reagan unlike Trump was basically liked by the GOP establishment during his winning campaign and had most of their endorsements as well.

The difference between Reagan and Trump is I believe the GOP establishment always wanted to move in Reagan's Direction and personally supported the policies Reagan supported, it was just that they didn't believe it was an electable platform until they say how well Reagan did in 1976(and his famous RNC speech). So by 1980 the Establishment seeing he could win embraced him as their candidate .

The 4th paragraph in this article : https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruz-is-just-like-reagan-in-1980-expect-people-actually-liked-reagan/ showed how much establishment support Reagan had in 1979(He had 90% of the endorsements )

On the other hand Trump was hated because his platform went against what the Establishment wanted even personally.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well trump takes everything to a whole another level, in this case disconnect with the establishment and their severe and legitimate concerns about him, which he did nothing to reduce in their eyes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It also should be noted that the "GOP establishment" in 1979 held absolutely nothing in terms of power in Washington. But yes, the whole party had been shifting in that direction for 30 years, Reagan was just the logical extension of it that evolution and transformation, so yes by 1979 a lot of the endorsements would flow to him. And elements of the establishment that would have been hostile had over the period from 1964 on-wards been rendered irrelevant or found a way to embrace Reagan.

Trump was raging a revolution against a political class from the previous order, who had still won elections running on the same stuff they had always run on serving as affirmation at there correctness. This amplified the level of shock at the amount of support and energy for a raging bull bent on tearing it all apart.

It would have been like Reagan running and winning in 1964, combined with Democrats not being in firm control of Congress. Throw in Trump's combative nature and narcissism, and you have basically the same dynamic.

[NOVA Green]

Here is some data that I just posted regarding the collapse of Republican support within the South Pittsburgh suburbs, that have generally been resistant towards the same types of massive swings towards the Democratic Party that we have seen elsewhere over the past 10+ years...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=281457.msg6114284#msg6114284

There are obviously plenty of other Upper Middle Class Anglo suburban districts elsewhere within the Rust Belt, where this phenomenon might well accelerate in 2018 and 2020....

[WestVegeta]

If you take a more social libertarian message on some issues, yes you can win over some millennials, but millennials will never vote for a libertarian economic agenda, not when you account for their economic outlook and prospects, their economic priorities are likely to be closer to that of the Depression era Greatest Generation.

There is model of conservatism that would appeal to that ethos, but it is far more stability of family and community oriented than that wild west style, rugged individualism.

Also moderating the rhetoric on immigration is not going to make Hispanics a group of raving economic Randians and Foreign Policy Hawks (Bush, Kasich and Rubio). It will get your foot in the door, but if what you are selling is still the same old garbage, you can expect to get booted off the property. In that sense it is correct to say that the party elders do not get it, they seem to think that immigration policy is a magic bullet to making their long term corporatist agenda become a reality.

This would also be a good time to point out the massive shift on healthcare, so much to the point that this will likely be the last gasp for an administration hostile to the idea that the gov't is obligated to ensure that income is not a barrier to wellness. Between the long term cost of denying preventative care until diseases worsen and become more expensive, to the lost productivity and work hours, the values system of treating health care as a luxury to be earned through working is completely out of touch with reality and backwards. Wellness needs to be maintained so people can work, and we should prevent chronic conditions from turning into expensive operations and procedures. That is how you get health care costs under control.

Combine moderate economic populism with some pro-life libertarianism and then you would have a solid combination that is largely in tune with the base and can compete for the suburban tracts.

If I'm understanding this correctly, you're suggesting that the GOP pivot towards an Americanized One Nation Toryism, right?

[NOVA Green]

Here is some data that I just posted regarding the collapse of Republican support within the South Pittsburgh suburbs, that have generally been resistant towards the same types of massive swings towards the Democratic Party that we have seen elsewhere over the past 10+ years...

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=281457.msg6114284#msg6114284

There are obviously plenty of other Upper Middle Class Anglo suburban districts elsewhere within the Rust Belt, where this phenomenon might well accelerate in 2018 and 2020....

Obvious places to look out for it will be in the suburbs in Missouri, which were noticeably fluky in that they were some of the only big metro areas that didn't swing left. My guess is because of Ferguson, but we'll see!

Good point about MO suburban areas around SLO, but the suburban areas around KC tell a slightly different story......

I'm honestly still a bit perplexed with the different vote swings between the affluent 'Burbs of Omaha versus those of KC....

One of the interesting subtopics when it comes to massive population increases within the "Grain Belt" is how rapidly growing places like KC, Tulsa, OKC, and DFW are, for a wide variety of reasons, compared to many other Metro Areas in the US, much of it driven by a significant relocation of skilled relatively educated professionals moving to "where the jobs are" as part of a "push pull" economic scene....

Still although it remains to be seen if this a longer term phenomenon, there is absolutely no question that there was a +15-20% swing towards HRC in '16 in much of the Tulsa, OKC, KC, and DFW Anglo suburbs.

Metro SLO has largely bypassed the economic boom that Metro KC has experienced over the past 10+ years, so logically places that did not experience the impacts of the Obama economic boom after George W's Iraq War and Financial meltdown would be much less likely to swing hard Democratic between '12 and '16.

Still, suspect that DEM holds MO-SEN 18, WV-SEN 18, PA-SEN 18 regardless of results anywhere else, based upon what data we have available thus far....

[Tekken_Guy]

Actually, the affluent and educated suburbs around St. Louis, like Ladue, Clayton, Wildwood, Ballwin, Town and Country, and Chesterfield all swung leftward. In the blue-collar areas like St. John, Hazelwood, and Overland is where Trump excelled relative to Romney or McCain. Most of the latter cities just happened to be closer to Ferguson than the former ones.

[RINO Tom]

Actually, the affluent and educated suburbs around St. Louis, like Ladue, Clayton, Wildwood, Ballwin, Town and Country, and Chesterfield all swung leftward. In the blue-collar areas like St. John, Hazelwood, and Overland is where Trump excelled relative to Romney or McCain. Most of the latter cities just happened to be closer to Ferguson than the former ones.

When will this great cultural divide drive you into the Democratic Party, do you think?