new jersey, 2000

[bullmoose88]

Note though, many of th NE suburbs have started to trend back to the GOP (if dave's maps are right)...but the reason the dems are doing so well right now in my area is that the GOP is soooo conservative on social issues...Economically the suburbs would vote republican...but social issues seem to matter more.

[bullmoose88]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

Doesn't matter...the GOP is still seen, and rightly so [I personally think], as the party you want in power for a good economy...although Clinton did do well in that regard...but he's being seen more and more as an abberation...the rest of the dems aren't what you want for the economy.

Furthermore, especially in the inner suburbs like mine, and also in the suburbs where you see the new people come from cities (like mine)...the GOP's economic stances would normally play well because the dems are too closely linked to the cities, and city finances...the GOP would win on the urban/suburban divide...in fact it still does...on the local level...taking social issues out of the equation would give the GOP back the suburbs.

As for Bucks County, and PA 8, Fitz did well down here in Lower Bucks for two reasons...1) he is from this area...my township to be exact, 2) Your candidate SUCKED flyers...you don't want to admit it, but look at it from this perspective...the dems nominated her when Greenwood was assumed to be her opponent. She was the token opposition that was sacrified (or supposed to be) to Greenwood. She wasn't going to beat Greenwood, she probably couldn't have beaten anyone save Satan himself. And Fitz was a good candidate, interms of record and experience...County Commissioner for a few terms in Bucks when life is/was good in the county. Hard to beat that. You guys are going to need an all star candidate in this district to unseat someone who now has even more name ID, and a pretty damn efficient party machine. This Murphy guy isn't going to cut it. Sorry man.

As for lower bucks...Generally democratic...my part of my township is more democratic than the whole overall, but its mainly due to the large number of well to do construction (former Philly resident) guys...who are democrats from birth...They're socially conservative and economically centrist [well to do blue collar guys]...(the rest of my township is more libertarian and thus more Republican). While Lower Bucks isn't hardcore economically conservative, its not an area where there are a ton of economic liberals either.

As for Democrats on the economy, Clinton did very well [helped by an unusual 1990s], and helped your party's reputation on the issue. He helped so much that now Bush's economic policies have raised doubt about a strong Republican issue. The problem is for you guys, as I see it, the economy is growing again, and Bush's tax cuts haven't done all the damage they were predicted to do (they may still do so)...so can you guys honestly run, now, as the party who will repeal Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? I don't think you can...and if they are allowed to sunset, the public blame for any problems associated with that, will be on the Ds heads.

I also see only a few dems who can maintain the Dems image of sound economic policy, many in your party have either tried to look so liberal as to win the nomination to be credible, or simply will send the economy into the toilet. (again my own personal opinion, and hence why I'm still a Republican)...combine that with someone who has a sound fiscal record--ie mccain, even romney (despite his kookyness on social issues, his fiscal management has been respectable) will quickly make people forget about the less finer points of Bush's economic record. In short, the social issues are all thats really keeping the dems on equal footing here in a yankee suburb...people simply trust the GOP more on these issues (even though they should really thank Greenspan and Volker).

[bullmoose88]

i would also argue that fiscal issues have hurt the gop among northern suburbanites.

the gop has been spending like a drunken sailor as of late.

Doesn't matter...the GOP is still seen, and rightly so [I personally think], as the party you want in power for a good economy...although Clinton did do well in that regard...but he's being seen more and more as an abberation...the rest of the dems aren't what you want for the economy.

Furthermore, especially in the inner suburbs like mine, and also in the suburbs where you see the new people come from cities (like mine)...the GOP's economic stances would normally play well because the dems are too closely linked to the cities, and city finances...the GOP would win on the urban/suburban divide...in fact it still does...on the local level...taking social issues out of the equation would give the GOP back the suburbs.

As for Bucks County, and PA 8, Fitz did well down here in Lower Bucks for two reasons...1) he is from this area...my township to be exact, 2) Your candidate SUCKED flyers...you don't want to admit it, but look at it from this perspective...the dems nominated her when Greenwood was assumed to be her opponent. She was the token opposition that was sacrified (or supposed to be) to Greenwood. She wasn't going to beat Greenwood, she probably couldn't have beaten anyone save Satan himself. And Fitz was a good candidate, interms of record and experience...County Commissioner for a few terms in Bucks when life is/was good in the county. Hard to beat that. You guys are going to need an all star candidate in this district to unseat someone who now has even more name ID, and a pretty damn efficient party machine. This Murphy guy isn't going to cut it. Sorry man.

As for lower bucks...Generally democratic...my part of my township is more democratic than the whole overall, but its mainly due to the large number of well to do construction (former Philly resident) guys...who are democrats from birth...They're socially conservative and economically centrist [well to do blue collar guys]...(the rest of my township is more libertarian and thus more Republican). While Lower Bucks isn't hardcore economically conservative, its not an area where there are a ton of economic liberals either.

As for Democrats on the economy, Clinton did very well [helped by an unusual 1990s], and helped your party's reputation on the issue. He helped so much that now Bush's economic policies have raised doubt about a strong Republican issue. The problem is for you guys, as I see it, the economy is growing again, and Bush's tax cuts haven't done all the damage they were predicted to do (they may still do so)...so can you guys honestly run, now, as the party who will repeal Bush's irresponsible tax cuts? I don't think you can...and if they are allowed to sunset, the public blame for any problems associated with that, will be on the Ds heads.

I also see only a few dems who can maintain the Dems image of sound economic policy, many in your party have either tried to look so liberal as to win the nomination to be credible, or simply will send the economy into the toilet. (again my own personal opinion, and hence why I'm still a Republican)...combine that with someone who has a sound fiscal record--ie mccain, even romney (despite his kookyness on social issues, his fiscal management has been respectable) will quickly make people forget about the less finer points of Bush's economic record. In short, the social issues are all thats really keeping the dems on equal footing here in a yankee suburb...people simply trust the GOP more on these issues (even though they should really thank Greenspan and Volker).

bullmoose wouldnt you agree that a pro-business democrat (ie clinton) is probably better for the economy than a supply-sider republican?

I think what you and Philip have said both have some merit. I'm one of those people who thinks that a president has only a small influence on the economy...Clinton and Reagan came at the right time to help the economy along (as little as they did).

Both guys have their pluses and minuses.

The economy under Clinton only improved, probably purely coincidental, once the more radical elements of the Clinton agenda (Hillarycare) failed and the voters elected a GOP congress.

Reagan...well...had some help from the Fed chairman to target inflation...but that lead to more unemployment. Reagan's 1986 Tax reform I think helped a good deal, but portions were repealed only a few years later.

I'm usually more concerned over what policy the Fed is taking rather than who sits at 1600 PA Ave.

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

The post's hysteria aside , I'm sure thats the case for many voters, but generally not the case in Yankee suburbs...which are comprised of white collar or affluent blue collar workers who have been out of the industrial (in the case of my county-steel mill) economy for decades now.

Factory Closings? Not such a big deal anymore...thats been over with up here...for a while...a crash in the housing market would be the real problem.

Finding a job? Unemployment is now what 5%? (+/- .3%?) thats pretty close to the natural rate of unemployment. (Yes I know in the 90s it was lower, but that seems to be an abberation due to technology booms coming into full power from their 1980s beginnings).

The most important part of your post is that you say recent polls. That is true, but historically, the GOP tends to lead on economic issues. Bush has tarnished that image, while Clinton helped you...but once the GOP is free from that rascal and the next person you guys nominate returns to the old democratic mantra of tax and spend (perhaps actually for the right reasons, someone's got to pay the debt down), we'll see who the people trust on the economy more.

[bullmoose88]

Recent polls show that voters prefer Dems on the economy. It's hard to care about GDP growth when your pension is being abolished, your factory is being closed, or you can't find a job that pays enough money to send your kids to college.

Were talking about Bucks County here.  bullmoose's analysis is on the money, I hate to say.  You have a lot of economically moderate/socially conservative union members, many of whom are farily well-off, in Lower Bucks who split their ticket for Kerry and Mike Fitzpatrick and in Central Bucks you have more affulent libertarians who love their tax cuts, yet are more socially liberal.  In as much as I absolutely loathe Mike Fitzpatrick, he does fit the lower portion of PA 8 quite well.  It seems we kinda hit the end of the line there whereas we have room to grow in Montgomery and the other counties surrounding Philly. 

I think you have a better chance at solidifying gains in Delaware County than you do in Montco...which is really a very socially liberal white collar county...of course, if you keep nominating Clinton-types...you'll win it, but I think eventually you guys will have to find a new mold of candidate, and risk that county.