Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[Virginiá]

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/22/handel-republicans-suburban-nightmare-215289

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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

[Virginiá]

What about the migration patterns of the Silent and Boomer cohorts? I'd imagine they'll be able to keep the sunbelt (at least FL and AZ) competitive the next few cycles for the GOP as they retire to states like those. Old people aren't moving to the north...too cold

That's true, although I would wonder what the exact effect might be. As I understand it, some of the younger baby boomers, the ones that grew up under Nixon, tend to skew a little Democratic. Granted, that's only a slice of boomers overall, but these particular boomers the ones who would be probably be migrating the most over the next few cycles, right?

Actually come to think of it, I don't know what ages old people tend to move. Those boomers are around 58 - 64 right now I think (off the top of my head)

[Virginiá]

Yeah, and Clinton was going to win in 2016.

You could use that as an excuse for anything political-related, no? It's a good way to avoid discussion on the topic but doesn't really prove anything and a logical fallacy as well.

[Virginiá]

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.

[Virginiá]

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.

Yes, that's true. I mean, there is really no strong evidence supporting the idea that districts like GA-6 will stick with current trends, but there also isn't much saying they will bounce back either. Though, I will readily admit that in this instance, given GA-6's history, it's more likely to bounce back than it is to continue trending Democratic. However after 2018 and even more so, 2020, if it's still going as Democratic as it is now, or more so even, then I'd say it might be fertile ground for Democrats.

I wish we could see where these kinds of districts will end up over a generation from now, but it's pretty hard to tell. All we have are demographics to go by, and that's not even a solid bet. If there is any group that we might expect to start trending against Democrats in the future, it's the kind of voters in this district: upscale white college graduates.

[Virginiá]

Upscale white college graduates aren't going to vote for people like Bernie Sanders and they definitely won't vote for tax increases for single payer, which is what the Democratic party is becoming.

That was kind of the point of my post. However, right now, social issues have created some divisions between Republicans and some upscale whites, and as younger, more Democratic whites grow up and some become upscale themselves, there is no guarantee they quickly flee to the GOP. This could easily be a generational event where the GOP eventually moderates on social issues as the Democrats move further left on economics, slowly pushing these more Dem-leaning upscale whites back to Republicans (or there for the first time), as there is no longer a major impediment to their support for Republicans.

If such a thing happens, there is absolutely no guarantee it happens quickly, especially as long as the Republican Party remains a bastion of social conservatism. Just because it is in their economic interests to do so doesn't mean they will immediately or for some, ever. This is pretty clear with current lower income whites. Further, I might add that GOP tax/economic policy is often geared towards the hyper-wealthy and corporations, leaving a lot of well-off whites mostly in the dust. Such a need to start voting for Republicans would probably be based on the perception of necessity.

[Virginiá]

Pundits keep going on and on about the GOP's demographic problems.. They aren't wrong on some of these issues but the GOP is certainly not having a "nightmare." They control the presidency, both houses of congress, and 34 governorships. Not too shabby.

It's political news - dramatization should be expected.

But for the record, going by political power in the moment probably isn't the best way to judge the long-term viability of a political party. Democrats were riding high in 2009 and even more so in 1993, yet a year later they were swept out in quick succession. You can find lots of examples of that happening to Republicans in the past as well. For that reason, it's good to keep an eye on these kinds of trends.

[Virginiá]

Democrats were not flying higher in 1993 than 2009, their president only won with 43% of the vote and they lost seats in congress. Also the GOP was much more popular in 1993 than 2009 as the Reagan/Bush years were much more popular than the Bush Jr years

I was using AlabamaIndy's logic to make my point. It doesn't matter how little Clinton won by, or whether Democrats lost a handful of seats. The point was that in terms of raw political power, Democrats were even in a better situation than Republicans were right now, and yet that all ended rather quickly. Hence it not being a good predictor of future success.

[Virginiá]

Also what exactly do you think the Presidential Popular Vote means exactly? I feel like that is your Particpation Trophy.

His point is that Republicans are weak on the presidential level, and he isn't wrong. It's not like they can't win, but it means their wins require clawing together a coalition just big enough to secure a small victory. You can say what you want about GOP success downballot, but Republicans have not really been successful at the presidential level for an abnormal length of time. Trump barely won in WI/MI/PA/FL. Of course, some people may say, "if he just won the popular vote, this margins in those states would be bigger," and that's the point - Republicans have a lot of difficulty winning the PV because their presidential coalition is weak.

Coalitions are always changing. The Democrats keep getting clobbered they will change their platform to attract a better Coalition.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "coalitions are always changing," but that is not really true unless you're talking over a period of decades. Certain generations have almost always leaned towards a certain party, usually identifying with the party they supported in their youth. Studies have shown as much. Partisan loyalties get harder to change as people age, taking bigger and bigger major events to shake them up.

As for "demographics is destiny" - African Americans and Hispanic voters have long been strong Democratic groups, for generations. If a state's minority population is constantly growing, basic math would suggest Democrats would do better there. In this context, "coalitions are always changing" as argument for continued Republican success in such a state would mean "Republicans winning more white voters," which is kind of hard when the GOP is already about tapped out in states like Georgia and Texas. Unless you think every state has the potential to see Mississippi-like Republican support from whites, it doesn't add up. If you think Republicans would *finally* make inroads with minorities after literally half a century, I'd imagine the onus is on you to articulate why.

[Virginiá]

I know that the whole "Generational Party Preference Theory" is extremely popular on this Sub but the fact is that life events change your Politcal views. That is why so many women become Republican after they are no longer single. It's also why hundreds of thousands of people in states like Pennsylvania have changed their party affiliation to Republican and turned the State red for the first time in 30 years.

The most generous interpretation I'd be willing to give here is that the kind of `major` events in a person's life that could cause them to switch party loyalties is more numerous than we know of. It's no secret that old people get more stubborn and are less likely to change in relation to all sorts of things. It's also why marketing tends to target young people - to build "brand loyalty." Partisan politics is not exempt from this.

For married women - again, that seems more like white women, and I think it may be less prevalent than one thinks due to the demographics of married women. According to this, married women are much more likely to be white and (a little) older - two demographics that tend to skew towards Republicans. I mean, you would be hard-pressed to say that married black women are skewing married women overall Republican, as black women went 94% for Clinton and 96% for Obama. Latino women went 69% Clinton and 76% Obama. Unmarried women are much more likely to be young, and thus by extension more likely to be non-white vs older generations. Not to say there isn't something to married women being influenced by their husbands, of whom are more likely to be Republican, but I'm not sure this particular statistic (married vs unmarried) means as much as it may seem.

-

As for states like PA changing party affiliation - I posted this in response to someone else the other day:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/upshot/democrats-edge-in-voter-registration-is-declining-but-looks-can-be-deceiving.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This people stopped voting for Democrats a long time ago (or moved/died). Of course, I never meant to imply people never changed loyalties, just that it takes major events, thus meaning it doesn't happen often. And then there are people who never developed any deep loyalties to a party, and are more pliable in their choices. I think if those states truly represented big problems for Democrats, their new registrations would be a lot more Republican-leaning, but that isn't the case. Not at all.

Nonetheless, states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Oklahoma, and so on, their party registration statistics aren't really examples of Democrats bleeding support in the Obama era. It's more like support they lost a long, long time ago and is just now starting to be reflected in party registration statistics.

-

Edit: Missed your comments about Hispanics/Asians/WWC:

1. The Hispanic vote in 2004 was higher than normal but it wasn't that surprising. No one says a party can't pick off a limited number of voters from the opposition's dominant groups. Up until recently, Republicans getting low-mid 30s% of Hispanic voters was the norm. In that sense, Bush did not diverge from historical norms.

2. Asians - this is a good example, but Asians have been moving to Democrats since, iirc, the 90s. They didn't really settle with Democrats until 2012, and given the results of 2014, you could argue that older Asian voters are still on the fence.

3. Whites w/o college degrees: I don't have data before 2008 for them, but Bush won all voters HS/some college comfortably, and that had to imply he won whites w/o college degrees. Again, remember, in the 90s and much less so in the early 2000s, you still had a decent number of Greatest Generation voters lingering around, many of whom were staunch New Deal Democrats. That is part of why Democrats had been performing well with older voters up until Obama.

Let's also not forget that Obama had a 7 point win in 2008. It should go without saying that the bigger the win margin, the more groups you are going to pull in, even if they are not traditionally voters open to [party]

[Virginiá]

If these Democrats stopped voting Democrat a LONG time ago like you claim then why exactly
Did Pennsylvania vote Republican for the first time in 30 years in 2016? Like what exactly
do you think that as soon as you start voting Democrat then you always vote Democrat? Like whoever is running doesn't matter and doesn't matter what the party's platform is? Because if so that is ridiculous.

I've consistently said that "brand loyalty" isn't ironclad and that things can change, only that it doesn't happen that often. I get that my take on election trends relies heavily on this idea but it's more nuanced than you think, as I've tried to explain.

Here are exit polls from PA 2016 and 2012, in that order:





Do you see what is going on? Trump made only marginal improvements with Boomers (ages 50 - 64), and actually lost a little ground with 65+, which is silent generation along with some older boomers.

Voters ages 25 - 40, Clinton's best group, is mostly Millennials with some young gen x'ers in the 36/37 - 44 range, who are notably more Democratic than older voters. These voters largely stayed the same from Obama 2012, except Clinton lost a lot of support to 3rd parties and Trump picked up some scraps.

But where Trump really surged? 18-24 year olds, most of whom voting in 2016 did not vote in 2012 because they were not old enough yet. This pattern played out in Wisconsin and Minnesota too - voters who were still in HS in 2012 came out more strongly for Trump/Republicans than other Millennials. Trump had a +9 pt improvement among 18-24 year olds.


In PA, Clinton's main problem was losing so much support among 18-24 year olds, and bleeding support to Johnson/Stein among Millennials. That was almost her entire problem there. It's not surprising either - young people hate(d) Clinton, and she had a bigger weakness in rust belt states among them.

-

Also, who's running does matter. Presidents are important figures, and who is president in a person's youth effects how they perceive that person's party. It's why Truman hurt Democrats among young silent generation voters, or why Reagan really locked in a lot of the boomer generation and older genx voters.

In that regard^, in 2016 it did matter who was the candidate. Clinton drove away young voters to third parties and somewhat to Trump in critical states. Who is the candidate also affects turnout. A bad candidate can lead to disproportionate turnout among D v R.

[Virginiá]

There is no evidence what so ever that Clinton lost Pennsylvania because of third party voters.

Eh, I also stated substantial defections among 18 - 24 year olds to Trump.

Trump won PA with ~48% of the vote - how could you not think 3rd parties didn't play a part, especially when most of them came from the most Democratic voters there are? Most of the 3rd party defections were among Millennials / people under 40, although there was a little more 3rd party voting among older people, but not too much. So yes, given how Democratic-leaning Millennials are, I'd say they are a substantial reason for Clinton's loss. I also never said they were Bernie backers. That's just you putting words in my mouth to make my assertion sound more unreasonable.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. There are numbers for this. Clinton's vote share among people over 40 is very similar to Obama 2012, yet her vote share of 18 - 29 year olds, more so, 18-24, is 8 points weaker than Obama - with Trump improving a lot on Romney and Hillary losing to 3rd party among what was 16% of the PA electorate.

You can argue with that all you want, but it doesn't change what is obvious.

What about all the Republicans who stayed home because Trump was on the ballet?

Hmm, I'm not sure, do you know how many stayed home? Even more so, how many Democrats stayed home? Clinton was very unpopular as well, and many thought she had the election in the bag, which no doubt caused her issues as well.

Also, exit polls show a substantial narrowing of the party ID gap in PA. I don't think Republicans staying home is too consequential here, for the reasons stated.

The idea that people don't change their political beliefs as they experience life is absolutely ridiculous.

Again, I never said they don't change their views. I said it doesn't happen often, and some of the times it does - usually in landslide elections, tend to be exceptions to the rule, where they revert back to their usual voting habits sooner or later.

You're the one who keeps seeing words like "usually do not change" and in your mind, turning it into "never changes." It's like you can't perceive the idea of 'some', or 'not all', and see everything in black and white terms.

If you want, read up on generational theories - Princeton has some studies on this, Pew has a lot of data it's put together backing it as well. It's not just crackpot theories cooked up by random people. We have voting data going back decades, and it's not that hard to see certain trends in it. I don't really feel like debating this anymore though, mainly because I'm not sure you're even reading what I'm saying.

So we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Virginiá]

*ahem*

I'll just leave this new link here:

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/08/virginia-elections-suburban-data-244713

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The difference being that 8 years of a mostly unpopular Democratic president had strengthened GOP electoral prospects downballot and depressed the Democratic base. Now that there is a deeply unpopular Republican president, we're likely to see an acceleration of long-coming political losses for Republicans in places they were destined to be kicked out of once the environment turned against them.

After all, at least in my opinion, it would be absurd to think the Republican Party's baseline in the country is where they are at now. They are greatly over-extended in many places, and 2018, 2019 and 2020 and then the 2020s after more neutral redistricting will likely see a correction - probably a big correction in some places.

[Virginiá]

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, this was also 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 (for various reasons), 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. As far as I can tell, the basis of this has almost entirely been due to the past generation seeing such a huge age divide, as if that is always how its been and will be. Such a lack of imagination, I must say.

It reminds me of people thinking midterms are always going to favor Republicans just because 2010 and 2014 favored Republicans, conveniently ignoring the unpopular Democratic president at the top dragging his party down when he's not on the ballot.