1988-2000 Urban-Rural realignment

[nclib]

I found this thread at the old forum, and it seems quite interesting.

https://uselectionatlas.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/leip/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=9&topic=23

Basically a former poster calculated the differences between 1988 and 2000 margins by Metropolitan Area. The largest metro areas had a much larger swing to the Dems. The highest swings were:

Pro-Gore:

West Palm Beach, FL (-38.4%)
Fort Pierce/Port St. Lucie, FL (-36.9%)
Orlando, FL (-34.9%)
Melbourne, FL (-33.3%)
New York City, CT/NJ/NY/PA (-28.7%)
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL (-26.8%)
Philadelphia, DL/MD/NJ/PA (-26.5%)
Tallahassee, FL (-25.9%)
Sarasota/Bradenton, FL (-25.6%)
Lakeland, FL (-24.5%)
Ocala, FL (-23.1%)
Daytona Beach, FL (-22.5%)
Los Angeles, CA (-22.2%)
Boston, MA/NH (-21.4%)
New London, CT (-21.4%)
Monterey, CA (-21.3%)
Las Vegas, AZ/NV (-20.9%)
Chicago, IL/IN/WI (-20.5%)
Port Charlotte, FL (-20.0%)
Phoenix, AZ (-19.9%)


Pro-Bush:

Lafayette, LA (10.5%)
Sheboygan, WI (10.9%)
Wheeling, OH/WV (11.3%)
Billings, MT (11.6%)
Provo, UT (11.8%)
Grand Junction, CO (12.2%)
Lake Charles, LA (12.3%)
Florence/Sheffield/Tuscumbia, AL (12.4%)
Pueblo, CO (12.5%)
Waco, TX (13.1%)
Amarillo, TX (13.3%)
Fargo, MN/ND (13.5%)
Redding, CA (14.2%)
Tyler, TX (14.5%)
Des Moines, IA (15.2%)
Sioux Falls, SD (15.9%)
Steubenville/Weirton, OH/WV (16.1%)
Johnstown, PA (16.7%)
Austin, TX (19.8%)
Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX (24.8%)

-----

It is also very interesting how far Dem the Florida areas swung.

[Beet]

There's not a huge surprise here from a casual glance at the 1988 and 2000 county maps. Without knowing the actual results or county populations, it would be easy to think Dukakis had done just as well as Gore. Look at WV, Soutthwest PA, the upper midwest, and the Plains. The biggest factor involved here of course is a shift within the Democrats, from the still populist economic leftism of the '80s to the New Democrats style of the '90s, which was no longer as economically populist. Gore did attempt to recapture some of that but he wasn't charismatic enough and didn't seem as folksy as Bush (the latter's Southern folksiness contrived for a Yale graduate and Connecticut/Maine native, but buttressed by extensive media coverage of humanizing verbal snafus).

[Nym90]

Well said, Beet. The Democrats moved to the middle economically, and Republicans moved right on social issues, and in both cases, that made the GOP more attractive to rural voters, but made the Dems more attractive to urban voters.

[minionofmidas]

One thing that shouldn't be forgotten is that 1988 is not the best point to start as Dukakis did surprisingly well in rural areas, surprisingly badly in the Suburbs. It would be fairer to go back to 1980 or 1976.
The overall impression remains more or less the same, though.

[dazzleman]

I think that one of the most profound political shifts since 1988 has been the shift of rural voters to the GOP and the shift of suburban voters to the Democrats.

Largely suburban states like Connecticut, that used to vote GOP in many recent presidential elections (1972, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1988) are now solidly in the Democratic column, while more rural states have become more solidly Republican.

The other profound shift has been regional, and that is at least partially a by-product of the rural-suburban shift.

1988 was actually, in retrospect, the last election carried by the Reagan coalition, which consisted of conservatives and most moderates voting Republican while liberals voted Democratic.  Just as 1976 was the last hurrah of the old Roosevelt coalition of southern conservatives and northern liberals.

Since 1988, the Democrats have picked up many moderate voters, who may not have loved the GOP social agenda but were repelled by the Democrats' economic populism and softness on crime and defense.

I don't think the GOP has really moved right on social issues since 1988.  That shift actually took place in the 1970s and didn't really involve moving right, but more strongly defending traditional values than the Democrats, which in reality equates more to maintaining the status quo in opposition to social change pushed by the liberal elements of the Democratic party.

I do think that social issues have taken greater prominence with the disappearance of the Soviet threat.  The receding of crime as a major issue for many suburban voters has put them in a more positive frame of mind toward liberal social ideas than was the case earlier.

We are now in the sad position that a significant minority of our population seems to hate our president more than the people who are right now planning to attack us with chemical or biological weapons, or anything that can kill large numbers of us.  We need to rebuild a clear majority coalition of those who care about the defense of this country.

[cwelsch]

This is a combination of immigration patterns (Florida has a lot of immigration), the rise of Clinton and the loss of Reagan.  In 1988 Bush won Reagan's third term, and the voting reflects that.  It becomes very different after Clinton actually gives the Democrats some decent ideas like free trade, government reform, targeted tax cuts, and then moderates them socially.

Republicans lose Reagan, Democrats get Clinton, immigrants vote Democratic, results in big shifts.  I don't quite know how to explain the pro-GOP shift places, but this shows why so many places changed for the Democrats.

[bullmoose88]

Yeah. I'm not sure--I've said this a ton of times--that this is a realignment of voters.

I think its more candidate based than anything. A christian democrat Texan going against a slightly more liberal DLC type (running for Clinton's third term)...really isn't indicative of voting patterns.

1992, and 1996 you can throw out since Perot obviously altered the 2 party matchup (while the net votes nationwide probably came from both parties...regionally its fair to say it probably came from one side more than the other depending on the region).

I think...if the GOP ran a Northern Moderate, and the Dems a Southerner...we'd have a voting pattern nationwide more like 1976...than 2000.

I think for the near term...its more candidate and party based than anything to do with voter changes.

Suburbia is still strong republican territory in almost everything save presidential elections.

Ask the state senators and representatives who represent townships and boroughs easily carried by Gore.

[WalterMitty]

i hate to rain on the parade, but suburbia is filled with people who have spent their entire existence following the crowd.  im not saying suburbia is void of interesting people, just that interesting and curious suburbanites are on the endangered species list.

let's not forget the environmentally minded soccer moms, with their suvs that get 10 miles to the gallon.  

i try to avoid interaction with suburban people.  of course, im not a people person.

and before i forget, comparing 1988 and 2000 results may be a bit stupid.  1988 was a mini-landslide were the republican nominee was up against a very weak democrat.  

[dazzleman]

i hate to rain on the parade, but suburbia is filled with people who have spent their entire existence following the crowd.  im not saying suburbia is void of interesting people, just that interesting and curious suburbanites are on the endangered species list.

let's not forget the environmentally minded soccer moms, with their suvs that get 10 miles to the gallon.  

i try to avoid interaction with suburban people.  of course, im not a people person.

and before i forget, comparing 1988 and 2000 results may be a bit stupid.  1988 was a mini-landslide were the republican nominee was up against a very weak democrat.  

If you think suburban people follow the crowd, you've obviously never seen the phenomenon of crowds of people trying to get into a mediocre New York City "hotspot" because the "in" crowd goes there.

There are those types of people everywhere, but probably more in cities than in suburbs.  Urban people exhibit their own forms of bigotry and presumed superiority over everybody else.

There's really nothing wrong with comparing 1988 to 2000, despite the obvious weakness of the Democratic candidate in 1988.  1988 truly was the last election in which the old patterns held true.  There were many more "swing" states back then, and suburban areas, even in the northeast, still voted Republican, as they had for decades before.  It's as good a year as any to compare for overall trends.