Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[RINO Tom]

Muh demographics never fail

Technically, everyone falls into some sort of demographic, and since winning elections is all about winning over people, demographics do indeed never fail

But in all seriousness, the article is more than that. Demographics in what is probably the sense you are speaking was barely a blip in the article.

It didn't get much "screentime," but the article literally says it might be the most important change of all, so hardly a blip ... and I agree with the author.  37%?!  That could flip tons of counties alone, and it only takes a TINY peeling off of former Republican voters turned off by the GOP's cultural positions to make it look like there was some massive switch.

Anyway, I can't help but feel this was at least an unintentional retort to the views that Timmy and I have conveyed that chasing after moderate, affluent Whites in suburban districts who are turned off by Trump is a fool's errand for Democrats, so I will clarify.  I have never said that the GOP doesn't have a "suburbs" problem or that these suburbs have changed drastically both in how their inhabitants view the world and even who those inhabitants are.  However, that's not the narrative that takes place; people ONLY talk about how formerly Republican suburban counties now vote Democratic and lazily look to what the parties could have done and how they could have changed to make this happen.  In essence, they're trying to figure out why the TYPES of voters who initially favored Republicans in the suburbs (wealthy, White, college educated) now seemingly favor Democrats.  AND THEY DON'T.  LOL, the article pretty much puts the inference there for all of us to see, but today's outer suburbs and exurbs are serving the same purpose that inner suburbs did in the 1950s, and they're still very Republican.  Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

[RINO Tom]

Inner suburbs ARE more urban than they used to be, and they're voting like it.  That doesn't mean that your stereotypical suburban Republican abandoned the GOP ... he/she probably either moved to an exurb or is now outnumbered in his/her formerly Republican hometown by different neighbors.

I would counter that while what you're saying is probably happening to a degree, I also think that the current and possibly next generation are probably breeding a type of suburban voter who may just be somewhat less Republican, and that will be the case until the next generation produces voters that reverse that trend. This is the Millennial/GenX/GenZ case I've made in this argument several times, so I won't go anymore into it, as it is probably safe to say we have both chosen our camps for the time being.

To be fair, I actually did think of you briefly when I decided to post this article (your nickname has basically become synonymous with suburban in my head), but this article was front-page Politico today and I really enjoyed it so as is usual with articles I like, I posted it

Good points on the first paragraph, and I would be perfectly willing to agree that "it will be interesting."  I just think too many people who follow politics like it's their favorite sport are looking for realignments in places they might not happen because we're aware of the past and we think it'd be interesting or exciting to see one happen in real time, so we "cheer for it," so to speak.  Most people I know didn't see that much different about the 2016 election than the 2012 election: a Republican rich guy vs. a "cosmopolitan" liberal.  There were obviously big differences, but for every person who thought, "Wow, what has happened to these parties??" I think there was at LEAST one who thought this was business as usual with a ruder Republican.

Haha, that's funny about my username, though, because I was born in a river city of about 400,000 (area) and now live in an incredibly liberal university town of 150,000 (area).   However, I can see why "RINO" would suggest suburban voter these days, and my politics are somewhat similar to many suburban areas.

[RINO Tom]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

I have nothing to back this up ATM, but don't you think we only are taught about the ones that stuck?  I mean, I'm sure there examples of states trending toward one party (like maybe the West trending toward first the populists [i.e., away from Republicans] and then eventually to heavily Democratic in the late 1800s only to become reliably GOP right after?) and the trend not sticking, but that doesn't really deserve the same "airtime" in a textbook as Southern Whites slowly going from 90% Democratic to 90% Republican.

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

I mean, who has said ALL will happen?

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

I mean, who has said ALL will happen?

ExtremeRepublican is one

Well, he's pretty extreme.

[RINO Tom]

So many Republicans here are like:
- Republicans will do better will Latinos in the future
- Republicans will hold on to all of the Trump converts in the rust belt
- Republicans will back all of the suburban voters they lost in 2016
- Generation Z will be a conservative generation, even during the Age of Trump

Some of these can be true, but they cannot all be true.

Don't forget "Trump was just a bad fit for that area, it'll go back to normal after he's gone"

How is that functionally different from the bolded?

[RINO Tom]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

Things always happen like they have happened in the past ... until they don't.  Just because we have one random and unique historical example or two (e.g., the South starting to support Presidential Republicans before downballot ones) does not automatically mean that we are about to see some shift in downballot support for Republicans of a similar nature in places like suburban Texas.

[RINO Tom]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

The Democrats spent Record amounts of money on Georgia 6 and had a very good candidate and the GOP had a very mediocre candidate and spent about 1/2 as much and still won. Trump was an awful switch for Texas, Virginia, Georgia and Colorado. The fact that Texas and Georgia did not become competitive under these ideal conditions means that they will be Solid Red States for the foreseeable future. 

Dems spent about $2 mil more than the GOP in GA-6 when add all the numbers up, not 1/2.

"Trump was a bad fit" is becoming an increasingly leaned on excuse for Republicans on this forum,  it fits their narrative virtually anywhere they want it to.   

How is that an excuse!? Trump is literally the only Republican who did bad in the state! They lost no power at all in Texas. Coalitions are constantly pushing some people out when they try to maximize another group. Trump's whole strategy was to capture the Rust Belt and Texas does not have a Rust Belt economy.

Honestly your comment "Trump was a bad fit is becoming an increasing common excuse" is very assinine and dismissive in my opinion. Explain exactly why you think it's just an excuse? I have explained why I think he was a bad fit.

The rest of the country follows the presidential vote, not the other way around.   It's been this way in every modern election since Clinton, at least.   I wouldn't be surprised at all to see single digit margins become the norm in Texas for Republicans in the next few cycles.   It will be a while before it's competitive statewide though.

Things always happen like they have happened in the past ... until they don't.  Just because we have one random and unique historical example or two (e.g., the South starting to support Presidential Republicans before downballot ones) does not automatically mean that we are about to see some shift in downballot support for Republicans of a similar nature in places like suburban Texas.

We already were seeing those shifts....Trump just accelerated them.

But Trump didn't cause the downballot "shifts" to be significantly more "accelerated," and you are implying that they will eventually catch up because that's what has happened in the past.  I disagree.  The Democratic Party quite simply has a ceiling with wealthy Whites, IMO.

[RINO Tom]

This is so exaggerated.  The only reason GA-6 was close this last election was because of Trump.  If the GOP had nominated anyone else, he/she would have carried that district by a wide margin, and probably most of the other R-leaning suburban enclaves that swung/trended D.

That said, the GOP has had a big problem with suburban voters since the 90s due to the rise of religious and social conservatives in the party.

sadly, the trend in GA 6 is likely fools gold. Trump was just trump, and that district LOVES establishment reps
If you subscribe to the idea that Trump has accelerated trends already in-progress (of which there is a good argument for), then there is no guarantee GA-6 will go back to where it was before. History is rife with examples of presidents pushing certain regions into the arms of the other party. Usually they just act as a catalyst for existing trends.

Feel free to believe this, but Rubio, Pence, or Cruz would win this district by double digits.

Then why didn't Handel?

Because she's a worse candidate than Rubio, Cruz or Pence, and Ossoff is a much better fit for the district than any national Democrat is going to be ... well, ever.

[RINO Tom]

Well actually if you look the average Republican Voter is 50 and the Average Democrat Voter is 47.1 so there isn't much difference in age. And with the exception of a few states like California most of the most diverse states are actually Republican. And States like Colorado and Nevada have become more Blue because of White People fleeing from California not because they became more ethnically diverse.

My theory is that as long as the Democrats keep focusing on identity politcs the GOP will keep the South and the Midwest will keep getting more Republican. I think certain states like California and Massachusetts will continue to get more Blue though.

Well, to each his own, but as the older generations move on and the country gets more Urban, the party that has lost 6 of the last 7 popular votes certainly doesn't have a bright future ahead of it in the long term.

In 2008, Whites without a degree were a Democratic-leaning group, by affiliation.  That was only 9 years ago.  If the GOP finds itself in a desperate situation, it will adapt.  It always has.  Democrats survived being blamed for the Civil War, Republicans survived being blamed for the Great Depression and both political parties are probably here to stay, however much they change.  There is just no way in hell that "current trends" hold much more than 20-30 years, so all of this talk is kind of silly.

[RINO Tom]

Even though DC's and Philly's suburbs are more Democratic-leaning than many other metros, there is no denying that these results are alarming and should scare Republicans.  Without suburban support (and that extends WAY beyond "Romney/Clinton" places or "Clinton/Downballot R" places), the GOP is screwed, just as Democrats are screwed with only urban support.  The GOP will probably plss this down its leg and lose many of those seats, but they'd be wise to realize that losing some of their most traditional stomping grounds is recipe for disaster for the party.  I fear now that they won't.

[RINO Tom]

Young people were not always saying they were going to usher in a new progressive era only to turn Republican. There were plenty of times where young people voted majority Republican. It was landslides among 18-29 year olds with Reagan. Further, there is a reason right now why the 30 - 44 age group is starting to skew a lot more Democratic, something was on full display in Virginia as well. When a party commands such massive margins among 18 - 29 year olds, it's not unreasonable to expect some erosion as they age, but the idea that Millennials and gen z are just going to flip to Republicans when they get older is pure garbage. It's a flimsy idea built on flimsy evidence that past generations already prove wrong.

Yeah, there seems to be a lot more evidence that voters/generations keep their political preferences, for the most part.  Looking back at exit polls of many Southern elections in the 1990s, for example, shows older voters reliably Democratic and younger ones Republican, but no one ever looks at that aspect closely enough and just treats groups like "Virginia Whites" as the same no matter what year it is.  There is no evidence that Millennials will become GOP voters anytime in the future.

[RINO Tom]

Gen Z is already to the right of the Millenials, as well.

Edgy 16-year-olds will not continue to think Trump is so cool once they have student loans to pay.

Edgy Bernie Millenials continue thinking universal healthcare is cool until they have to pay the taxes for it...

Yeah instead they get to pay even more on dogpoop private insurance that gives you worse coverage for more money.

Unless you are for some reason not including the huge tax burden as part of paying, source on the bolded?