Is the GOP suburban erosion temporary?

[Tekken_Guy]

If the GOP continues to go down a Trumpist path then the suburbs will continue to flee them. If they return to the GOP of old days then they could come back. But that means going back to focusing on practical matters as opposed to identity politics.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think Republicans bounce back in the less diverse suburbs in the 2020s once Trump is gone. The more diverse ones though are probably gone for a long time.

This is my thinking as well. They have much more of a future in places like the Pittsburg suburbs and Staten Island (which was still 64% non-Hispanic white) than they do in Orange County and south Florida.

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I think Republicans bounce back in the less diverse suburbs in the 2020s once Trump is gone. The more diverse ones though are probably gone for a long time.

This is my thinking as well. They have much more of a future in places like the Pittsburg suburbs and Staten Island (which was still 64% non-Hispanic white) than they do in Orange County and south Florida.

Dems didn't really won that many seats in lily white suburbs though... What are we looking at -

Staten Island - but that is not actually that white and will probably be redistricted to be safe Dem.

PA-11 - Yep.

PA-17 (not really a pickup, but true that Lamb should eventually face a serious challenge.

MI-08, MI-11 - but one district in MI will be gone from redistricting, the other will probably benefit from not being gerrymandered.

MN-02 and MN-03 - Yeah, these should be longer term worries. But not the easiest for GOP to win back, particularly MN-03.

The NJ Districts - Although those districts are fairly white, NJ is not that white, and they will probably get less white in redistricting.

KS-03 - Pretty white, though it does have some non-whites in KC Kansas.

IL-06 and IL-14 - IL-14 in particular would be a major worry long term. But these will be gerrymandered to be safe D and less white. There is a large and growing non-white contingent in the Chicago suburbs.

OK-05, SC-01 - But I wouldn't really count on them as anything more than 1 term rentals anyway.

So it doesn't seem to me like there are that many such districts. Maybe up to 10 of them, realistically.

[Technocracy Timmy]

I think Republicans bounce back in the less diverse suburbs in the 2020s once Trump is gone. The more diverse ones though are probably gone for a long time.

This is my thinking as well. They have much more of a future in places like the Pittsburg suburbs and Staten Island (which was still 64% non-Hispanic white) than they do in Orange County and south Florida.

Dems didn't really won that many seats in lily white suburbs though

Where in my post did I write this?

[Former Dean Phillips Supporters for Haley (I guess???!?) 👁️]

I think Republicans bounce back in the less diverse suburbs in the 2020s once Trump is gone. The more diverse ones though are probably gone for a long time.

This is my thinking as well. They have much more of a future in places like the Pittsburg suburbs and Staten Island (which was still 64% non-Hispanic white) than they do in Orange County and south Florida.

Dems didn't really won that many seats in lily white suburbs though

Where in my post did I write this?

Where in my post did I write that you wrote that?

It was really an observation, not a criticism of you - yes, the GOP is much more likely to gain back white suburban seats than diverse suburban seats, but there are not a whole lot of white suburban seats for them to choose from. And going forward, there are going to be more diverse suburban seats as a result of the next redistricting.

Their best targets are rural/small city white seats (MN-07/IA-01/IA-03/PA-08/NY-19/NY-22, and a few others). But there are not rally a huge 3 of those either. If you combine those and the white suburban seats, that is probably enough for a GOP majority, but only a very small one at most that doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the GOP continues to go down a Trumpist path then the suburbs will continue to flee them. If they return to the GOP of old days then they could come back. But that means going back to focusing on practical matters as opposed to identity politics.

I think there's about a 1% chance of the GOP returning to those old days, even after Trump. And that's being generous. I genuinely don't think these people are capable of focusing on anything other than black people kneeling, Confederate traitor statues, Caravan circuses, etc. Sorry, RINO Tom

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

[Technocracy Timmy]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

[Technocracy Timmy]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

Ah I see. Cletus and Jimbo don’t want a Reaganite Party though. They love Trump.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

Ah I see. Cletus and Jimbo don’t want a Reaganite Party though. They love Trump.

They loved W Bush even more uptil Katrina

[Technocracy Timmy]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

Ah I see. Cletus and Jimbo don’t want a Reaganite Party though. They love Trump.

They loved W Bush even more uptil Katrina

This is the 2004-2016 swing map.

The Cletus and Jimbo demographic definitely preferred Trump over Bush lol.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

Ah I see. Cletus and Jimbo don’t want a Reaganite Party though. They love Trump.

They loved W Bush even more uptil Katrina

This is the 2004-2016 swing map.

The Cletus and Jimbo demographic definitely preferred Trump over Bush lol.

Than why were Bush’s approval among Republicans higher

[Kyle Rittenhouse is a Political Prisoner]

I consider returning to the old days , returning to the days of Reagan not to the days of Rockefeller

Back when America was 80-85% non-Hispanic white and Reagan won California with 57% of the vote? Not happening mate.

the Republican Party not the landslide wins

Ah I see. Cletus and Jimbo don’t want a Reaganite Party though. They love Trump.

They loved W Bush even more uptil Katrina

This is the 2004-2016 swing map.

The Cletus and Jimbo demographic definitely preferred Trump over Bush lol.

Than why were Bush’s approval among Republicans higher

Because Bush was more popular with other demographics?

[pppolitics]

Unless the GOP stop becoming the party of Trump, it is permanent.

[DC Al Fine]

Short term: Yes
Long term: No

If you look across the Anglosphere, one can see a broad realignment; the centre right coalition is downscaling and the centre left coalition is upscaling. This suggests that the trend is being caused by demographic and social factors that are out of the GOP's control, and that there is little to nothing for Republican pols can do to reverse it. They should instead be focusing on "the path of least resistance" as NC Yankee likes to put it, and work on maxing out the WWC and winnable Hispanics.

That said, Donald Trump is particularly toxic to the white, educated, prosperous, nominally religious sort that the GOP used to own. He has driven away votes that should still be winnable for his party. It wouldn't surprise me if you saw a modest Republican recovery in suburbia in the first couple of cycles after his presidency ends.

[RINO Tom]

Short term: Yes
Long term: No

If you look across the Anglosphere, one can see a broad realignment; the centre right coalition is downscaling and the centre left coalition is upscaling. This suggests that the trend is being caused by demographic and social factors that are out of the GOP's control, and that there is little to nothing for Republican pols can do to reverse it. They should instead be focusing on "the path of least resistance" as NC Yankee likes to put it, and work on maxing out the WWC and winnable Hispanics.

That said, Donald Trump is particularly toxic to the white, educated, prosperous, nominally religious sort that the GOP used to own. He has driven away votes that should still be winnable for his party. It wouldn't surprise me if you saw a modest Republican recovery in suburbia in the first couple of cycles after his presidency ends.

I would be surprised if such a recovery didn't change any realignment longterm, though.

[SInNYC]

If you look across the Anglosphere, one can see a broad realignment; the centre right coalition is downscaling and the centre left coalition is upscaling. This suggests that the trend is being caused by demographic and social factors that are out of the GOP's control, and that there is little to nothing for Republican pols can do to reverse it.

Great observation, but I would suggest another cause. The "downscale" vote wants redistributionist economic policies and secondarily is afraid of social changes. But the center left everywhere has pretty much abandoned the former (even in countries without Blair or Bill Clinton), and voters are left with only a choice on the latter.

This extends outside the Anglosphere too - Germany for example. And most of the anti-immigrant parties in Europe manage to combine redistributionist economic policies and hatred of outsiders (Trump does too in campaign speeches, to some extent).

[Ilya Gerner]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think these are good points, but would be more careful about implying that the changes are happening mostly around income, rather than around education. Even this past midterm cycle, Republicans did best with voters earning $200k+. Democrats did best with voters earning less than $30k (obviously there is a strong racial factor here), earning 63% of that vote (that's from the CNN exit poll; all the usual caveats about exit polls apply).

The archetypal Democrat is going to be a low earning, but highly credentialed person: a social worker with an MSW, a PhD-holder teaching at a community college, a JD who does public interest legal work. The archetypal Republican will increasingly be a high income, low education voter: any kind of successful small business owner or a salesman.

It's true that if you look at districts, rather than voters, you'll find that of the 66 wealthiest districts by household income, Democrats now control 56. And it's true that in the last General Election Labour won a bunch of "stableshire-upon-Thames" seats even as Corbyn campaigned on a left-wing platform. But I think it's an ecological fallacy to assume that just because wealthy places are trending left, it means that the richest voters (rather than highly educated ones) are leading the charge.

[wbrocks67]

It's hard to say. Moderate Rs in the suburbs are probably still okay with voting someone in who is an R and who is sane. Even some Dems would vote for a moderate R if they were good enough.

However, Trump has hurt the GOP brand so much that even sane and normal candidates get tied to him. There's a reason people like Ryan Costello (moderate R in Philly suburbs who easily won in 2016) decided to retire. Fitzpatrick in PA-01 barely survived this year, and that's only because he's purposely molded the 'moderate R' thing for two years. And that was against a candidate who wasn't even particularly liked (Scott Wallace).

I think it's always possible it's temporary, but for now, in the next 5-10 years, if the GOP keeps *overall* doing what it's doing, then these suburban folks are going to get turned off even more.

[vileplume]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think these are good points, but would be more careful about implying that the changes are happening mostly around income, rather than around education. Even this past midterm cycle, Republicans did best with voters earning $200k+. Democrats did best with voters earning less than $30k (obviously there is a strong racial factor here), earning 63% of that vote (that's from the CNN exit poll; all the usual caveats about exit polls apply).

The archetypal Democrat is going to be a low earning, but highly credentialed person: a social worker with an MSW, a PhD-holder teaching at a community college, a JD who does public interest legal work. The archetypal Republican will increasingly be a high income, low education voter: any kind of successful small business owner or a salesman.

It's true that if you look at districts, rather than voters, you'll find that of the 66 wealthiest districts by household income, Democrats now control 56. And it's true that in the last General Election Labour won a bunch of "stableshire-upon-Thames" seats even as Corbyn campaigned on a left-wing platform. But I think it's an ecological fallacy to assume that just because wealthy places are trending left, it means that the richest voters (rather than highly educated ones) are leading the charge.

Corbyn did not win any ''stableshire on Thames'' seats. The type of seats you are referring to (e.g. Windsor, Henley, Surrey Heath, North East Hampshire etc.) all stayed very solidly Tory. In fact of the 10% of least deprived constituencies Labour only won 1: Sheffield Hallam, defeating the former Lib Dem Deputy Prime minister Nick Clegg. And the only reason why they managed that anyway was because the Tory vote increased at the expense of the Liberals allowing Labour to take the seat. In fact Labour only won 1 seat in the 10% next most deprived constituencies too! Conversely the Tories only won 1 of the 10% most deprived constituencies.

It is true that Corbyn did extremely well in the inner cities and most inner suburbs I don't know what it's like in the US but these areas mostly have high poverty rates in the UK. Take Labour's victory in Kensington for example, the reason for it was not because Corbyn won over the snooty borgeiouse types in South Kensington but mainly because massively energised the very deprived ethnically diverse North Kensington (especially young first time voters). It is true Brexit probably weakened the Tories enough in South Kensington to get Labour over the line but wealthy Tory voters upset over Brexit probably mostly voted Lib Dem or stayed home rather than voting Labour.

Also note The Cities of London and Westminster constituency where the Tories narrowly held on is actually more deprived than the average constituency.

Other wealthy constituencies won by Labour e.g. Canterbury were primarily due to the Corbyn surge amongst young people (who tend not to be very well off) as opposed to him winning over wealthy Tory voters.

The collapse of the GOP in wealthy, low-deprivation suburbs is something that hasn't happened in the UK. The country club types are still very much dyed in the wool Tories and broadly despise Labour. If the GOP jettisons Trumpism, far-right social conservatism, culture war issues and make a genuine effort to appeal to minorities it is very likely the suburbs will come back to them especially if the Democrats manage to enact a significant portion of their agenda. Plus progressives really shouldn't want to rely on rich suburbs long term as in most other countries these type of places would vote for the more right-wing major party thus the amount of left wing policies that the Democrats can pass without causing their coalition to collapse will be much more restricted.

[pbrower2a]

Nothing is permanent except change. Blacks used to be heavily Republican.

[Skill and Chance]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think these are good points, but would be more careful about implying that the changes are happening mostly around income, rather than around education. Even this past midterm cycle, Republicans did best with voters earning $200k+. Democrats did best with voters earning less than $30k (obviously there is a strong racial factor here), earning 63% of that vote (that's from the CNN exit poll; all the usual caveats about exit polls apply).

The archetypal Democrat is going to be a low earning, but highly credentialed person: a social worker with an MSW, a PhD-holder teaching at a community college, a JD who does public interest legal work. The archetypal Republican will increasingly be a high income, low education voter: any kind of successful small business owner or a salesman.

It's true that if you look at districts, rather than voters, you'll find that of the 66 wealthiest districts by household income, Democrats now control 56. And it's true that in the last General Election Labour won a bunch of "stableshire-upon-Thames" seats even as Corbyn campaigned on a left-wing platform. But I think it's an ecological fallacy to assume that just because wealthy places are trending left, it means that the richest voters (rather than highly educated ones) are leading the charge.

Makes me wonder what is happening after $200K family income?  My intuition would be it gets more and more R up to somewhere between $1M-$10M and then swings back to the D's eventually?

[TML]

Nothing is permanent except change. Blacks used to be heavily Republican.

But can you identify the time when the Republican Party will make serious efforts to appeal to them again?

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

This depends. The decline of GOP support in various suburbs is dependant on two major factors, these being the increasing minority population and the loss of support amongst suburban whites.

Suburban areas primarily affected by the former are unlikely to start slowing down/trending back towards the GOP, as PEW polling has found minorities are overwhelmingly in favour of larger governments which provide more services (http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-size-of-government/by/racial-and-ethnic-composition/among/religious-family/nothing-in-particular/), so unless the GOP completely abandons their economic platform they're not going to make significant inroads into minority groups (comparing the PEW results to exit polling in 2016 and you can see they're almost maxed out). So I think the primarily sunbelt metro areas like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, etc. are going to continue to slip away from the GOP.

However, with regards to suburban areas which are mostly non-hispanic white and/or aren't undergoing a massive expansion of the minority population, where the loss of GOP support is primarily due to declining support amongst whites, I do believe after a few cycles we will see a halt or reversal to this trend. The reason why I think this is because though the Democrats have been able to do rather well in such areas since the 90s by nominating moderate "New Democrats", especially when compared to the unhinged Trump and his populist rhetoric, there is an increasing faction in the Democratic Party which wants to do away with "New Democratic" dominance and shift further to the left on economics along with pressure to double down on certain social rhetoric (White privilege, identity politics, etc.). In the future we could see the New Democratic dominance in the party weaken, and if a populist/progressive is nominated, you'd probably see a swing back towards the GOP in white burbs. If the progressives become the dominant force of the party this would likely cause white suburbs to trend back to the GOP, though white suburbs are becoming a smaller segment of the electorate.

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

Though as long as Democrats keep nominating moderate "New Dems" and the GOP nominates people like Trump suburb erosion will probably continue.