What if Trump wasn't the cause of gop decline in suburbs?

[Matty]

A LOT of people assumed dems collapsed in rural areas in 2010, 12, 14, etc because Obama was President and racial animus was the key. This was a very logical explanation. It didn't turn out to be true. Now, dems would donate a kidney if they could just get back to Obama levels in rural swing states.

What if the same false optimism happens to the GOP? Imagine they nominate charlie baker or nikki haley, who do worse than trump in suburban areas! It means the entire trump-toxic suburbs hypothesis was wrong.

I truly think this will end up being the case. I think in a couple cycles, trump's performance in the burbs will be the stuff of envy for republicans of the future.

[Politician]

Um, Democratic support only collapsed in Appalachian/southern rurals during the Obama presidency. In the Midwest, Obama did pretty well in rural areas.

Also, these thesis is total nonsense.

[ElectionsGuy]

A LOT of people assumed dems collapsed in rural areas in 2010, 12, 14, etc because Obama was President and racial animus was the key. This was a very logical explanation. It didn't turn out to be true. Now, dems would donate a kidney if they could just get back to Obama levels in rural swing states.

What if the same false optimism happens to the GOP? Imagine they nominate charlie baker or nikki haley, who do worse than trump in suburban areas! It means the entire trump-toxic suburbs hypothesis was wrong.

I truly think this will end up being the case. I think in a couple cycles, trump's performance in the burbs will be the stuff of envy for republicans of the future.

No, it wasn't. It was always a bad excuse, an excuse that when many pundits and politicians made probably cost them a lot more votes!

To the second part, I think that it is certainly possible. Also, we can have another type of demographic realignment where certain types of suburbs vote more Republican or Democratic.

[Gracile]

The trend of suburban areas moving toward Democrats and rural areas moving toward the GOP has been going on for about the last two decades.

[Matty]

The trend of suburban areas moving toward Democrats and rural areas moving toward the GOP has been going on for about the last two decades.

Which is why this idea that post trump the gop will see "gains" in suburbs and losses in rural areas is absurd.

The suburbs are not conservative anymore.

[TJ in Oregon]

Trump won the suburbs by more than Romney did. He just did worse in a certain kind of suburb, one that people think of as the stereotypical suburb. But its voters don't necessarily count more than less wealthy suburbs.

[cvparty]

he accelerated it

[OSR stands with Israel]

Except Dems dont need those rural areas back , Republicans need the Suburbs

[Epaminondas]

Trump won the suburbs by more than Romney did. He just did worse in a certain kind of suburb, one that people think of as the stereotypical suburb. But its voters don't necessarily count more than less wealthy suburbs.

Are you sure of this?
After all, under the EC & Senate electoral rules, rurals voters count more than urban voters.

[Some of My Best Friends Are Gay]

Rural areas getting more Republican has and suburban areas getting more Democratic has been a trend since at least 1992, on the Presidential level. but Trump and his overtake of the GOP has really accelerated this. I think someone like Kasich or Rubio would have done far better than Trump did in areas like NOVA, the Atlanta 'burbs, SoCal, etc.

[QAnonKelly]

Rural areas getting more Republican has and suburban areas getting more Democratic has been a trend since at least 1992, on the Presidential level. but Trump and his overtake of the GOP has really accelerated this. I think someone like Kasich or Rubio would have done far better than Trump did in areas like NOVA, the Atlanta 'burbs, SoCal, etc.

Kasich and/or Rubio wouldn't have done well in the Atlanta suburbs. Gwinett and to a lesser extent Cobb were always ticking time bombs for the GOP. Gwinnett is only 40 % white now and Cobb will be majority minority in the census next year.  Them becoming D under Trump was more a coincidence than anything.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

The trend of suburban areas moving toward Democrats and rural areas moving toward the GOP has been going on for about the last two decades.

No it has not been going on for that long. A large extent of this happened only in 2016.

Los Angeles, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit; the suburbs of each of these large cities all trended Republican in 2012.

[cvparty]

The trend of suburban areas moving toward Democrats and rural areas moving toward the GOP has been going on for about the last two decades.

No it has not been going on for that long. A large extent of this happened only in 2016.

Los Angeles, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit; the suburbs of each of these large cities all trended Republican in 2012.

omg...that doesn't mean they have to trend D every single election. chesco trended D in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2016

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Trump won the suburbs by more than Romney did. He just did worse in a certain kind of suburb, one that people think of as the stereotypical suburb. But its voters don't necessarily count more than less wealthy suburbs.

Are you sure of this?
After all, under the EC & Senate electoral rules, rurals voters count more than urban voters.

Not really though. Using the Census definition - not exactly right, but as good as any available when it comes to measuring a classification as subjective as rurality - Pennsylvania has about ten times as many rural voters as Vermont. New York has ten times more rural voters than North Dakota.

Most rural voters live in large, populous states, just like everybody else. It's true that Senate representation elevates some parochial concerns more than others, but the electoral college has nothing to do with cities in intent and little to do with them in its effect.

The people who purvey this myth are either Democrats stoking resentment against the countryside or Republicans stoking resentment against cities. In all cases they are ignorant of our country's history, politics, and geography.

I don't think this proves your claim as well as you think. Pointing out that most rural voters live in large states ignores the fact that there are still many rural voters that, in effect, have states to themselves more or less without having to compete against urban voters. There are a handful of states that have the opposite problem (think: Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland) which alleviate this somewhat but on balance it does favor rural voters (if you are thinking strictly about a rural-urban divide and ignoring subgroups within each coalition). This is less true in the electoral college because the states are closer to evenly-weighted than the Senate but the difference in the Senate is more than "parochial".

The median state is certainly more white and rural than the median voter but as far as proportional representation goes the real problem with the electoral college is that it means that it's in candidates' mutual best interest to focus on a small number of swing states.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Sorry - wasn't trying to draw an equivalence between swing states and rural states (in part because which states are "swing states" changes over time). I brought up swing states because that's a more egregious case of disproportionate representation than "rural/urban states".

I agree about your point that what is rural is poorly defined. I have a good friend from a town of <20K people two hours from a major metro area who does not consider himself to be rural. This is also complicated by, e.g., college towns, resort towns/areas, and rural retirement destinations. I am very hesitant to accept the claim that "urban populations are large majorities in most states" especially using census definitions. The would probably count places like Watertown SD as urban even though in many ways they identify just as much with "rural consciousness" than they would people of Minneapolis or even Sioux Falls.

[Gracile]

The trend of suburban areas moving toward Democrats and rural areas moving toward the GOP has been going on for about the last two decades.

No it has not been going on for that long. A large extent of this happened only in 2016.

Los Angeles, Austin, San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Detroit; the suburbs of each of these large cities all trended Republican in 2012.

No, it wasn't just 2016. If you look at trend maps from 2000, 2004, and 2008, in particular, you'll see that a number of suburban counties in those metro areas trended Democratic. The 2016 election was when this trend became more pronounced (and it was countered by a pronounced rural trend toward the GOP). However, the suburban move toward the Democratic party has been gradual over the last two decades.

[Sumner 1868]

The suburbs will be ghost towns in twenty years so it doesn't matter.

[Alben Barkley]

he accelerated it

This.

The suburbs will be ghost towns in twenty years so it doesn't matter.

Based on??? The suburbs are largely growing. It’s the rural areas that are shrinking.

[AN63093]

To the second part, I think that it is certainly possible. Also, we can have another type of demographic realignment where certain types of suburbs vote more Republican or Democratic.

This.  A big mistake people make in analyzing demographics is by grouping areas together just because they share some similarities.  Case in point- discussing the "suburbs," as if it is a monolithic entity.

Some suburbs will continue to decline for the GOP, others will not.  An example of one that will is NOVA.  These counties are either already 60% D, or soon will be.  Eventually they should stabilize to be somewhat similar to some DC suburbs in MD; e.g. Montgomery County.  The margins may not be quite that high (i.e. 75% D), but they will not be competitive again, at least in my lifetime.  The demographics there are just simply not receptive to a GOP message; it doesn't matter how it is packaged- whether Romney is the messenger, or Trump.  The GOP is losing either way, only the margin would change a few % here and there.

Other suburbs are actually trending R.  An example would be Calvert County MD, or Putnam County NY.  Trump not only won these counties but they are trending R as well.  Maybe they are better described as "exurbs" rather than suburbs, however.  A candidate for a county that could be in this category in the future is Nassau County NY, which swung R and I think could start trending R as well.  Some other examples could be Lorain County OH, or speaking of the Cleveland area, Parma.

The demographics of these suburbs are quite a bit different than NOVA.  It is hard to explain the difference, but you know it when you see it.  And it's not always a matter of income level either- for example, Calvert County MD has a household income well above national average and is one of the top 20 counties in the US by median income.  But it trended R and Trump won it.  Though both Calvert, and say, Fairfax are in the same metro, the demographics are very different and if you live in the area, you'll know what I'm talking about.  For those in the NYC metro, you see the same sort of dynamic in Long Island compared to say, Westchester.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

To the second part, I think that it is certainly possible. Also, we can have another type of demographic realignment where certain types of suburbs vote more Republican or Democratic.

This.  A big mistake people make in analyzing demographics is by grouping areas together just because they share some similarities.  Case in point- discussing the "suburbs," as if it is a monolithic entity.

Some suburbs will continue to decline for the GOP, others will not.  An example of one that will is NOVA.  These counties are either already 60% D, or soon will be.  Eventually they should stabilize to be somewhat similar to some DC suburbs in MD; e.g. Montgomery County.  The margins may not be quite that high (i.e. 75% D), but they will not be competitive again, at least in my lifetime.  The demographics there are just simply not receptive to a GOP message; it doesn't matter how it is packaged- whether Romney is the messenger, or Trump.  The GOP is losing either way, only the margin would change a few % here and there.

Other suburbs are actually trending R.  An example would be Calvert County MD, or Putnam County NY.  Trump not only won these counties but they are trending R as well.  Maybe they are better described as "exurbs" rather than suburbs, however.  A candidate for a county that could be in this category in the future is Nassau County NY, which swung R and I think could start trending R as well.  Some other examples could be Lorain County OH, or speaking of the Cleveland area, Parma.

The demographics of these suburbs are quite a bit different than NOVA.  It is hard to explain the difference, but you know it when you see it.  And it's not always a matter of income level either- for example, Calvert County MD has a household income well above national average and is one of the top 20 counties in the US by median income.  But it trended R and Trump won it.  Though both Calvert, and say, Fairfax are in the same metro, the demographics are very different and if you live in the area, you'll know what I'm talking about.  For those in the NYC metro, you see the same sort of dynamic in Long Island compared to say, Westchester.

Calvert County, MD is not part of the DC Metro.
Putnam County, NY is not part of the NYC Metro.

[AN63093]

Calvert County is in the DC metropolitan statistical area as defined by the OMB and Census and Putnam is in the NY MSA.  Additionally, Calvert is in the DC commuting area defined by the OPM for purposes of establishing locality pay adjustments to federal salary.  Likewise, Putnam is in the NY commuting area used by the OPM.  Putnam is connected to NYC via commuter train (Metro North).. which in fact, goes all the way to Dutchess.  Commuter rail doesn't go to Calvert.. the MARC doesn't really service that area and the VA side has the VRE so there's a bit of a gap SE of DC if you can't get there from the green line.  But there is MTA commuter bus that goes past PG County, into Charles and Calvert, and actually all the way to St Mary's.  There are definitely people that commute to areas around the beltway and even DC proper from Calvert.

I am going to go with those objective criteria over your unexplained assertion which appears to just be your own personal opinion that no one else uses.  I'm originally from NY and I live in VA so I know this area.  You're not talking to some guy from the West Coast or something, so you're gonna have to do better than that.

[Grassroots]

The suburbs will be ghost towns in twenty years so it doesn't matter.

Suburbs are growing though...

It’s the rural areas that are shrinking.

No, they are just becoming less represented due to the extreme growth of cities.

[Tartarus Sauce]

He’s not the cause, but he is an accelerant.

[Smash255]

The overall suburban trend has been going on since before Trump was in the picture.    Some suburban areas went Democratic back in the 90's others stayed Republican for considerably longer, but started the Democratic trend during the 90's as well.

Romney was the perfect Republican for the suburbs and many suburban areas did shift Republican in 2012 from where they were in 2008, but were still considerably more Democratic than they were 10-15 years earlier.

What Trump has certainly done is accelerated the trend, especially with the type of suburban voter that use to be a huge part of the GOP suburban base (well educated middle to upper middle class voters)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Calvert County is in the DC metropolitan statistical area as defined by the OMB and Census and Putnam is in the NY MSA.  Additionally, Calvert is in the DC commuting area defined by the OPM for purposes of establishing locality pay adjustments to federal salary.  Likewise, Putnam is in the NY commuting area used by the OPM.  Putnam is connected to NYC via commuter train (Metro North).. which in fact, goes all the way to Dutchess.  Commuter rail doesn't go to Calvert.. the MARC doesn't really service that area and the VA side has the VRE so there's a bit of a gap SE of DC if you can't get there from the green line.  But there is MTA commuter bus that goes past PG County, into Charles and Calvert, and actually all the way to St Mary's.  There are definitely people that commute to areas around the beltway and even DC proper from Calvert.

I am going to go with those objective criteria over your unexplained assertion which appears to just be your own personal opinion that no one else uses.  I'm originally from NY and I live in VA so I know this area.  You're not talking to some guy from the West Coast or something, so you're gonna have to do better than that.

I live in Baltimore County, Maryland myself.
The Patuxent River is quite clearly the boundary between the Baltimore and DC Metros. Under that line, Calvert County, Maryland is part of the Baltimore Metro, not the DC Metro.