White suburbs

[Ashley Biden's Diary]

Well?

[pbrower2a]

Suburbia has become legitimately urban, and it has much the same problems -- high costs for government services and infrastructure improvements, and environmental threats.

The GOP seems to treat suburbia as if it were still the somewhat bucolic area of happy families in a semi-rural environment, where people with above-average incomes can be enticed with appeals to tax cuts. Such an approach is grossly outdated -- and it caused an electoral catastrophe for the GOP.

Tax cuts mean little if low taxes mean gridlock on the expressways and boulevards. Because Suburbia has alternatives for employment, suburban government must pay teachers, cops, and other public employees enough to keep then from going to more lucrative activities -- just as in the Big City. Suburban kids rely heavily upon state universities and government-sponsored loans to stay in the middle class.

[TeePee4Prez]

1.  Abortion/Family Planning
2.  Gun Control
3.  Economics

Theories based on local observation:  These are of course general.

Most suburanites were once from somewhere in a major city or had family from "the old neighborhood".  They were mainly Reagan Democrats.  They saw their parents neighborhood decline and decided they didn't want to live there so they move the the suburbs and become Republicans.  After a while, they see how corrupt the local GOP is and the fact they have to pay for every little service, the national GOP is getting more conservative, and they realize their professional jobs aren't so secure.  Also in order to maintain their lifestyle, family planning enters as an issue and the Catholic church is seen as out of touch.  Over time these voters start drifting back to the Democrats.  My basis for comparison is mainly Montgomery and Bucks Counties.

The inverse is happening in the urban white North.  I don't know about NYC or Boston, but in Philly you hear a lot of white cops being shot by primarily black suspects.  Interesting to note the NE Philly shift from Kerry to McCain was slight due to the fact it has a more suburban feel, but South Philly went strongly towards McCain.  Now economically, people in these neighborhoods are in fact cops, firefighters, or in the trade unions.  For the most part they know they'll have a paycheck coming in next month.  This may sound callous, but this kinda gives them the "luxury" to worry about whether a black person moves in next to them over their wallets hence allows them to be bought in by some of their implied racial rhetoric.  This is why you're seeing a GOP swing.     

[Antonio the Sixth]

The economy, stupid !
LOL

[Filuwaúrdjan]

It's worth pointing out that the GOP domination (and even then only at Presidential level) in the '80's was pretty atypical. In the '60's and '70's it was more of an advantage, and not always a secure one.
Voting patterns in areas that are not communities should not be looked at in the same way as voting patterns in communities.

[memphis]

In addition to what others have said, I'll point out that most of these suburbs aren't exclusively "white" anymore.  There are a good number of Asains, Hispanics, and even Blacks moving out these days. These folks are going to add votes in the Dem column.

[Rob]

Voting patterns in areas that are not communities should not be looked at in the same way as voting patterns in communities.

i.e., constant population change in suburbs make most historical "trend" data meaningless? I agree.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Voting patterns in areas that are not communities should not be looked at in the same way as voting patterns in communities.

i.e., constant population change in suburbs make most historical "trend" data meaningless? I agree.

That's part of it (a big part), yeah. But also, these places (especially (though not only) the ones built over the past, I don't know, let's say three decades or so) are actually anti-community. You know, they're built in a way that is both insular and individualist (contrasting with the common urban pattern from the mid 19th century onwards, which was open and collective. Or with places before then; insular and collective). Or if there is community, it is not there but elsewhere. So voting patterns are typically much more loose, partisan ties less fixed, the effect of national campaigns all the greater, the impact of security issues massive (because its easier to be afraid if you are "alone"). Not sure if that makes much sense; I'm ill again, haven't been able to eat for the past three days or so and am on strong painkillers and stuff. I  might be a bit out of it.

Anyway. It's also interesting to see how different this suburban reality is from early 20th century suburban idealism. The idea was for places built along open-and-collective lines and for town and country to merge in an aesthetically pleasing way. While the reality of suburbia (especially, but not entirely, in the U.S)...

[Mint]

I'd say it's a general cultural disconnect coupled with plain old incompetence. The GOP keeps pushing the same tired 'values' issues. Their pandering to the religious right increasingly comes at the expense of professionals, women, and various other minorities. Meanwhile they've done nothing to assure voters that their economic 'philosophy' (if you can call it that) works, or even that they're even remotely sincere about much of it (see: spending).

Then there's the reality that welfare reform, crime control, etc. haven't been seriously debated on the national level since the mid-90s.

[pbrower2a]

I'd say it's a general cultural disconnect coupled with plain old incompetence. The GOP keeps pushing the same tired 'values' issues. Their pandering to the religious right increasingly comes at the expense of professionals, women, and various other minorities. Meanwhile they've done nothing to assure voters that their economic 'philosophy' (if you can call it that) works, or even that they're even remotely sincere about much of it (see: spending).

Then there's the reality that welfare reform, crime control, etc. haven't been seriously debated on the national level since the mid-90s.

I don't think it so much incompetence as perversity. The "values" issues that the GOP promotes are so narrow that they offend the majority. The alliance with the Christian fundamentalists to push pseudo-science (including creationism) as education threatens the education necessary for creating the scientists and engineers that many suburbanites want (including as their sons and daughters). The anti-feminism works only to facilitate economic exploitation. The rejection of high culture ensures the staleness of suburban life.

The GOP tried to create an absurd coalition between on the one hand a moneyed elite and on the other hand the hardscrabble poor who have little in common -- one whose ethos is a promise that if the common man suffers in overt subordination and exploitation for distant owners and harsh managers, and defends their exploitation through military service, that they will get rewards in Heaven that others won't, and plutocrats and executives -- godless as they may be --  will get the rewards that they want in This World.  Such adopts a mirror image of a Marxist critique of capitalism as a virtue. Cartels became more rapacious and executives more rapacious.

The white poor believed this when the black (their heritage doesn't believe it) and Hispanic (largely Catholic, they believe something else) poor didn't. Suburbanites could be led with promises of low taxes until government spending (for the enrichment of defense contractors) went out of control; now they know otherwise. As the well-paying jobs disappear and the cartels squeeze out small business (long a constituency for the Right), suburbanites recognize the increasing shabbiness of American life. 

Welfare reform? The GOP has excoriated the poor for years but it dares not abolish welfare. Crime control? Gross inequity in a society that cherishes material indulgence above all else (for lack of anything better) creates greed and fosters anger. The methamphetamine epidemic devastates communities that escaped heroin and crack cocaine.   

[ag]

The inverse is happening in the urban white North. 

Unless there has been a rapid population shift in the cities, it doesn't really look like much of a shift. Here is the Dem share in presidential voting in some "core" urban counties (are you claiming they are getting increasingly black so fast?)

Philadelphia, PA

1980 58.66%
1984 64.94%
1988 66.60%
1992 68.16%
1996 77.44%
2000 80.04%
2004 80.44%
2008 83.01%

New York, NY

1980 62.40%
1984 72.06%
1988 76.14%
1992 78.20%
1996 79.96%
2000 79.76%
2004 82.08%
2008 85.70%

Suffolk, MA

1980 52.46%
1984 62.27%
1988 64.02%
1992 60.62%
1996 73.01%
2000 71.38%
2004 75.88%
2008 77.49%

Suffolk county (Boston and a couple of suburubs) was 58% white in 2000, BTW. Doesn't seem like much of a shift to Republicans to me.

[muon2]

I posted this earlier this month on another board, but it seems appropriate here as well.

One place where the labels don't fit well, and where the GOP has seen its biggest losses are in the suburbs. The suburbs were a big part of Reagan's coalition, and he knew the importance of their issues.

The biggest issues in the suburbs are what I would call quality-of-life issues. They don't like taxes, but will accept those that go to core services like safety, infrastructure, and basic education. The suburbs can deal with social change but preferably in small incremental steps. Radical change is frowned on, but so are attempts to turn back the clock. Environmentalism is important, precisely because it has a strong link to the sense of quality of life and it too is subject to the incremental approach.

I would not characterize this as liberal in the urban sense, but it doesn't find an easy expression in modern conservatism. To mount a comeback, the GOP must find a way to show how this fits within a conservative view as it had for decades.

[TeePee4Prez]

The inverse is happening in the urban white North. 

Unless there has been a rapid population shift in the cities, it doesn't really look like much of a shift. Here is the Dem share in presidential voting in some "core" urban counties (are you claiming they are getting increasingly black so fast?)

Philadelphia, PA

1980 58.66%
1984 64.94%
1988 66.60%
1992 68.16%
1996 77.44%
2000 80.04%
2004 80.44%
2008 83.01%

New York, NY

1980 62.40%
1984 72.06%
1988 76.14%
1992 78.20%
1996 79.96%
2000 79.76%
2004 82.08%
2008 85.70%

Suffolk, MA

1980 52.46%
1984 62.27%
1988 64.02%
1992 60.62%
1996 73.01%
2000 71.38%
2004 75.88%
2008 77.49%

Suffolk county (Boston and a couple of suburubs) was 58% white in 2000, BTW. Doesn't seem like much of a shift to Republicans to me.

In the case of Philadelphia- a slight increase in black population and an influx of liberal whites closer to downtown, but the blue collar white, primarily Catholic, areas have actually trended GOP the past 2 cycles- slightly in the Northeast, strongly in South Philly.  If the economic crisis didn't set in, it could have been far worse for Obama.  Then again if Hillary Clinton were the nominee, McCain would have packed up out of PA a long time before Election Day.  I would do a division(precinct) analysis, but I don't have the time.

[Mint]

I don't think it so much incompetence as perversity. The "values" issues that the GOP promotes are so narrow that they offend the majority. The alliance with the Christian fundamentalists to push pseudo-science (including creationism) as education threatens the education necessary for creating the scientists and engineers that many suburbanites want (including as their sons and daughters).

I mostly agree, although I think it's hard to over-estimate the degree to which Bush, the 109th congress, etc. are still hurting the party with their pathetic job performance ratings. The general public is ambivalent about many of those subjects increasingly going by the polls, if not accepting of them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slow down there, Karl.

Actually I agree to an extent, the opposition to things like equal pay, birth control, etc. makes them seem not only hostile to people's personal choice but their economic livelihood. Even without abortion, they still come off as very anti-woman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there was and still is some truth to that. Though obviously, I would probably question many of your underlying economic assumptions. However, I think more so than that a lot of the party has been, and still does, advancing it self by putting other people down. They've promoted the attitude that no matter how pathetic your own life is, least you're whatever group they happen to be rallying against at the moment ('secularists,' gays, illegal immigrants, etc.). It's victim/identity politics for white christian males.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look at polls, tax cuts are still popular. There is a reason Obama is still promoting his tax credits left and right even while promising to raise them on the 'wealthy.' I think the real problem is, Republicans have lost all credibility on the issue of domestic spending. Even while paying lip service to supply side economics, limited government, etc. the Bush administration and others like them have spent hundreds of billions not just on expanding entitlements and departments but on the 'earmarks' and other pet projects... All while railing against them. Not only that, but in addition to obvious hypocrisy they have nothing to offer the general public in place of their (often poorly explained) 'small government' model.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I was implying is, those issues traditionally have drawn white middle class voters to the GOP. That is not to say that I whole heartedly endorse all aspects associated with those policies. I find the war on drugs and cuts in mental health services in particular to be disastrous. However, regardless of their validity, most of those policies were adopted to a limited extent by the Democrats in the 1990s. Consequently, serious expansion of welfare reform and a return to a more rehabilitative/positivist 'liberal' position on crime has largely been outside of national public discourse. That may be changing given some provisions of the stimulus (food stamps, unemployment) plus some states considering abolishing the death penalty once more. But those are not anywhere near the hot button issues they once were, and that's demonstrably hurt the Republicans.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I voted foreign policy, though it is more that the issues of the 80s are no longer as important. The stuff Dukakis was attacked over isn't as relevant anymore. Crime is down and there's no Cold War.

[pbrower2a]

I don't think it so much incompetence as perversity. The "values" issues that the GOP promotes are so narrow that they offend the majority. The alliance with the Christian fundamentalists to push pseudo-science (including creationism) as education threatens the education necessary for creating the scientists and engineers that many suburbanites want (including as their sons and daughters).

I mostly agree, although I think it's hard to over-estimate the degree to which Bush, the 109th congress, etc. are still hurting the party with their pathetic job performance ratings. The general public is ambivalent about many of those subjects increasingly going by the polls, if not accepting of them.

The damage is severe, and it won't go away quickly enough to rescue the GOP as a powerful challenge to the Democratic Party for the next few years. Damage control is necessary -- yet it has not been started. If there were ever time for principled statesmanship within the GOP, then now is the time. Partisanship just isn't enough to win elections.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Slow down there, Karl.

Actually I agree to an extent, the opposition to things like equal pay, birth control, etc. makes them seem not only hostile to people's personal choice but their economic livelihood. Even without abortion, they still come off as very anti-woman.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there was and still is some truth to that. Though obviously, I would probably question many of your underlying economic assumptions. However, I think more so than that a lot of the party has been, and still does, advancing it self by putting other people down. They've promoted the attitude that no matter how pathetic your own life is, least you're whatever group they happen to be rallying against at the moment ('secularists,' gays, illegal immigrants, etc.). It's victim/identity politics for white christian males.[/quote]

Diversion of anger to pariahs offers not only hazards to pariahs but also no solution to economic distress. Cast off the secularists/heretics and the intellectual innovators flee. A ban on same-sex marriage denies an expression of one of the noblest expressions of human goodness -- love that many can express in no other way. We can achieve more by steering people away from illegal drug use than by shipping "illegal aliens"... back.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you look at polls, tax cuts are still popular. There is a reason Obama is still promoting his tax credits left and right even while promising to raise them on the 'wealthy.' I think the real problem is, Republicans have lost all credibility on the issue of domestic spending. Even while paying lip service to supply side economics, limited government, etc. the Bush administration and others like them have spent hundreds of billions not just on expanding entitlements and departments but on the 'earmarks' and other pet projects... All while railing against them. Not only that, but in addition to obvious hypocrisy they have nothing to offer the general public in place of their (often poorly explained) 'small government' model.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I was implying is, those issues traditionally have drawn white middle class voters to the GOP. That is not to say that I whole heartedly endorse all aspects associated with those policies. I find the war on drugs and cuts in mental health services in particular to be disastrous. However, regardless of their validity, most of those policies were adopted to a limited extent by the Democrats in the 1990s. Consequently, serious expansion of welfare reform and a return to a more rehabilitative/positivist 'liberal' position on crime has largely been outside of national public discourse. That may be changing given some provisions of the stimulus (food stamps, unemployment) plus some states considering abolishing the death penalty once more. But those are not anywhere near the hot button issues they once were, and that's demonstrably hurt the Republicans.
[/quote]

Tax cuts are popular, but control of reckless spending is far more difficult. Both The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are big-spending parties. To be sure, effective government does not come cheap, and privatization has its hazards (especially when the privatization entails the imposition of monopoly power). Does anyone want to sell the non-tolled highways off to profiteers who exact as much out of users as possible, or would we prefer that governments have responsibility for their condition? Much as I despise drugs, I recognize the use of those drugs that induce oblivion (including alcohol to excess) as symptoms of a sick society unable to induce confidence in economics and other human relationships.  Welfare reform? Shrinking opportunities ensure the need, even if only for a couple of years, of the expansion of welfare just to prevent hunger.

I'm not sure that I can fully trust the concept of rehabilitation in corrections. Most people who enter the penal system are already wrecked badly, and the wreckage demonstrates the appropriateness of earlier intervention. Local governments can use computer technology to make police work more effectively; an example is San Jose, California, which has computers in police cars so that the police can check any license plate number for legal violations. Grand theft auto, one of the gateway crimes, has plummeted. 

Unglamorous as mental health is as a public expenditure, we surely need to quit foisting the care for the mentally-ill upon relatives who must mess up not only their own finances but (even worse) their personal lives in custody of the dim-witted and insane. The only insane that our system treats effectively anymore are the senile and feeble-minded elderly.  Ronald Reagan went too far in 'emancipating' the mentally-incompetent, many of whom ended up in the penal system when they could take care of their needs in only one manner.

If the GOP has any future outside of rural America, then it will be as a challenge to corrupt and ineffective governments. It can no longer rely on the assumption that suburbanites care for nothing more than constraint upon taxes.  Tax cuts have gone as far as they can go in stimulating the economy, and those of recent years may have achieved little more than to foster perverse economics: big-business predation of smaller businesses, reckless spending, and sub-prime lending.

American history has shown that the #2 party can die from its own discreditation (Federalists) or irrelevancy (Whigs). 

[Mint]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, again I would agree with that. Keep in mind I am firmly socially liberal. The problem at this point is that the Republicans are so indebted to the Religious Right that they can't deviate meaningfully from their current positions and win elections. On the other hand, they can't continue to win them by pandering either. At least not with their current coalition, which is heavily reliant on evangelical turn out. I could see them becoming economically centrist or even liberal if they continue to focus so much on social conservatism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is, when it comes to both Americans are basically suffering from 'having your cake' syndrome. They want low, or at least present, rates of taxation. They want to contain waste. They by and large want a lot of flexibility in their healthcare, retirement, ec. (especially healthcare). But they also want to have universal coverage against sickness and old age, broad loans, subsidies for local business, a robust military, etc. The average american has no idea what sort of sacrifices an entitlement system actually require of them, and when confronted with them tend to balk at the idea of paying more, restricting access, etc. We're a nation of infants.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think in the short term, that may happen simply because the costs of the high way system as it is now are astronomical. The federal high way system is spending $40 billion upwards just to maintain the current system, but the amount of money estimated for repairs pushes that well into the hundreds. When nearly every state is suffering from a steep decline in tax receipts and a growing population reliant on government services, selling off the roads is going to become more attractive to law makers if not the general public. I'm ambivalent about the desirability of road privatization, other than that I honestly think the high way system was a mistake and we should focus more on encouraging public transportation and sprawl control.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think modern anxiety plays a role within that, but we have other factors at work too.   Alcohol advertising is a lot more pervasive now (see: hard liquor ads on TV) and we live in a society which glorifies binge drinking in a lot of settings. People are basically indoctrinated to think if they don't drink alcohol regularly there's something wrong with them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I was more referring to the popularity of said policies. For the past 40 years Welfare has been viewed as largely redundant and prone to abuse. Obviously, a lot of that is racialized but the image persists. That seems to be changing a bit now as the food stamp and unemployment insurance programs are expanded, without much public outcry. Personally, having looked into the subject I'd prefer our welfare system operated more along the line of New York's, where their WeCare system actually does evaluate people to see if they can work and if so where. Either that or work training. We need more public-private type programs to ensure people are doing something with their time. Hunger can be alleviated if we start getting rid of barriers like high tariffs, crop destruction, etc. that artificially drive up price plus start buying food in bulk (probably cheaper and more nutritious than food stamps).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One of the primary problems with rehab is in fact that it's not so much geared towards treating individual problems so much as busy work basically. A lot of these 'work programs,' meetings, etc. in prisons aren't conducted by professionals, and in the case of some of the drug programs out there, don't even keep track of the recidivism rate outside of self-reports. Some states like California are working to change that but it remains a persistent problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair, it actually started under Carter although he was 'moderate' by the standards of the time. Reagan and the courts ("least restrictive environment...") just accelerated the trend. But as I said before, I actually agree with you. Right now our prison system is being devastated by being forced to essentially warehouse a large portion of the mentally ill. We need to change the way our mental health services function, a big component of that needs to be mandating coverage of mental illness in health insurance (public or otherwise) along with funding for mental treatment centers and half way houses. We should probably be spending on that instead of building new prisons (or again, the 'war on drugs').

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd disagree that they had much to do with the current economic predicament, though they didn't improve our credit situation. What really drove the current crisis were our low interest rates (1-4.25% from roughly 1993-2007) and over leveraging (brought on by unregulated 'credit default swaps' and other ridiculous accounting processes). Both of those things could have been avoided if we had a more cautious monetary policy and took time to improve the transparency of our banking system during the late 1990s. And we could do that now, but instead we're attempting to stimulate growth once more by keeping interest artificially low yet again (0.25% roughly) and token regulatory measures.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely. My guess is more towards the former than the latter at this point, given their current course. Although I could see the emergence of a competing party/independents in some areas like the Northeast right now.

[nclib]

Not sure how to vote in this poll, but overall the biggest issue is that the GOP has pandered to cultural groups that are repulsive to most white suburban Northerners, even many Republican white suburban Northerners.

The inverse is happening in the urban white North.  I don't know about NYC or Boston, but in Philly you hear a lot of white cops being shot by primarily black suspects.  Interesting to note the NE Philly shift from Kerry to McCain was slight due to the fact it has a more suburban feel, but South Philly went strongly towards McCain.  Now economically, people in these neighborhoods are in fact cops, firefighters, or in the trade unions.  For the most part they know they'll have a paycheck coming in next month.  This may sound callous, but this kinda gives them the "luxury" to worry about whether a black person moves in next to them over their wallets hence allows them to be bought in by some of their implied racial rhetoric.  This is why you're seeing a GOP swing.     

While you have more anecdotal evidence than I do, looking at the numbers, I don't see a sizeable Kerry-McCain swing in any broad area. Excluding Mass. (with lack of home state effect), not a single urban county swung GOP and only one urban CD (NY-9) swung GOP.

How do reactions to white cops being shot by blacks, hurt the Democratic party? Dems certainly don't advocate violence and are more supportive of social programs that will in the long-term reduce crime.

[TeePee4Prez]

Not sure how to vote in this poll, but overall the biggest issue is that the GOP has pandered to cultural groups that are repulsive to most white suburban Northerners, even many Republican white suburban Northerners.

The inverse is happening in the urban white North.  I don't know about NYC or Boston, but in Philly you hear a lot of white cops being shot by primarily black suspects.  Interesting to note the NE Philly shift from Kerry to McCain was slight due to the fact it has a more suburban feel, but South Philly went strongly towards McCain.  Now economically, people in these neighborhoods are in fact cops, firefighters, or in the trade unions.  For the most part they know they'll have a paycheck coming in next month.  This may sound callous, but this kinda gives them the "luxury" to worry about whether a black person moves in next to them over their wallets hence allows them to be bought in by some of their implied racial rhetoric.  This is why you're seeing a GOP swing.     

While you have more anecdotal evidence than I do, looking at the numbers, I don't see a sizeable Kerry-McCain swing in any broad area. Excluding Mass. (with lack of home state effect), not a single urban county swung GOP and only one urban CD (NY-9) swung GOP.

How do reactions to white cops being shot by blacks, hurt the Democratic party? Dems certainly don't advocate violence and are more supportive of social programs that will in the long-term reduce crime.

At a micro-level in Northeast and South Philly, there was a Kerry -> McCain swing and in fact it was far less than I anticipated.  Kerry won every Ward in the city while Obama lost South Philly's 26th Ward by 6, but Kerry won it by 4 for a 10 point swing.  There were reports of VERY nervous Democratic Ward leaders in primarily working class white Wards prior to the election.  One such Ward, the 55th, the Dem leader said he would have been lucky to pull 1/3 of the vote for Obama had it not been for the economic crisis.  There was even a very small phone poll taken amongst 3 of these Wards where Kerry got 50 votes to Bush's 30 about 4 months before the election and Obama only got 25 votes to McCain's 45 with 10 undecided in the poll.  I wouldn't doubt Hillary Clinton would have pulled extremely high numbers in many of these Wards while Obama only won them narrowly.

FTR I supported Joe Biden in the primary (write-in), but supported Obama when he was declared the winner.  Not to sound like Jack Murtha, but trust me, I took a lot of sh**t for it in the beginning.

[Vepres]

I voted for economics, though the losses were caused by a combination of factors:

1. Distrust of Republicans: Even a stalwart Republican must admit that Bush and the Republican congress didn't keep their promises. Fiscal Responsibility? Ha! Bush created record budget deficits (though Obama will probably break that record). Small Government? They expanded medicare and with the patriot act gave the executive branch way too much power. Not to mention the government bank bailouts at the end of Bush's term (though to be fair, Democrats controlled congress). Humble Foreign Policy? LOL. Bush promised a "humble foreign policy" during his 2000 campaign. Don't be arrogant, get out of their affairs, and they will respect us more. Ironically, Bush did the exact opposite when he came into office.  They did cut taxes, but at what cost? The deficit exploded.

Republicans must regain voter's trust. This will be slow. Even if they gain majorities in the house in 2010 (not likely at this point) it will be because Democrats were worse. They must be principled, even when in power, and admit their mistakes during the early 2000's.


2. Social Issues: It's not that they were socially conservative, but that they would not accept socially moderate to liberal Republicans who otherwise agreed with them as "true conservatives". On top of that, they had to constantly talk about these issues and frankly it alienated many otherwise conservative suburbanites and independents.


3. Foreign Policy: As I said above, what happened to "a humble foreign policy"? Afghanistan may have been justified, but Iraq was not, and invasion followed by occupation is not humble, but arrogant.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I have a question for anyone from Wisconsin and/or Indiana on here:

Why are the Milwaukee and Indianapolis suburbs so overwhelmingly Republican? This is a phenomenon that has always intrigued me. Any thoughts and insight would be appreciated. Thanks  

[pbrower2a]

I have a question for anyone from Wisconsin and/or Indiana on here:

Why are the Milwaukee and Indianapolis suburbs so overwhelmingly Republican? This is a phenomenon that has always intrigued me. Any thoughts and insight would be appreciated. Thanks  

Indianapolis? When Richard Lugar was mayor he did one of the most rational ways of a big city dealing with suburban sprawl: he incorporated it into Indianapolis by arranging an idea called "Unigov". Any community or rural area within Marion County not already within a city would become part of Indianapolis. In effect, Indianapolis devoured any suburban fringe before it could form.  Indianapolis has had few suburbs, and the ones that it now has are mostly outside Marion County. Those still have exurb qualities -- some rurality remains. They thus vote Republican because they have yet to get big-city problems.