Politico: The GOP’s Suburban Nightmare

[GGSETTER]

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. 

[GGSETTER]

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.

[GGSETTER]

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.

Yeah I don't buy it at all. Like Did Indiana become any Bluer at all after Obama actually WON it? What about North Carolina? Obama actually Won (As opposed to lost it by like 9 Points like Clinton lost Texas) it as well and it's gotten Redder. Pennsylvania and almost all the other Rust Belt States were won by Democrats for 30+ years at the Presidential Level yet were getting more and more Republican. So right now it looks like your theory is very inaccurate.

[GGSETTER]

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.

[GGSETTER]

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.

People don't die when they are 50. Where do you think they are "Moving on to"? In the Long Term the Democrats will drop the Identity Politics or at least pull back on them and become a viable Major Party again. Until they do that they will keep losing power. They lost approximately 1,000 seats since 2008 and are the weakest any major party has been in 100 years. Coalitions change constantly so they can come back if they attract a different coalition.

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

[GGSETTER]

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.

People don't get this. The Democrats keep pushing "Muh Demographics is Destiny" even though the whole theory is proven wrong time and time again. Coalitions are always changing. The Democrats keep getting clobbered they will change their platform to attract a better Coalition.

[GGSETTER]

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.

Heavily black states tend to be republican, but broadly speaking democrats do better in more diverse states.

Look at a map of the Blue States (States where all 3 Branches of the Legislature  are run by Democrats) and compare that with a map of the states where all 3 branches are controlled by Republcians and then get back with me on that.

[GGSETTER]

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.

Heavily black states tend to be republican, but broadly speaking democrats do better in more diverse states.

Look at a map of the Blue States (States where all 3 Branches of the Legislature  are run by Democrats) and compare that with a map of the states where all 3 branches are controlled by Republcians and then get back with me on that.

Look back at the same map in 2009...it was the exact opposite.  That's completely normal for the end of an 8 year president's party.

Glad you picked 2009. After a GOP President was losing 2 wars, their was a major recession and he tried to pass amnesty. But no the collapse of Democrat Power these last 8 years was not normal. It was very extreme. But what Are you saying? All the Whitest States become controlled by the President's Party after 8 years? The Democrats are in serious trouble going into 2018 with their current Coalition.

[GGSETTER]

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.

Well it's true that Republicans will probably never win Blacks again and Democrats will probably never win Whites again the fact is that neither Party has to do this. All they have to do is make slight gains in the other Party's Coalition.

Coalitions don't take decades to change either. Like in 2004 Bush won like 40% of Hispanics and I believe he won Asians. And in 2008 Democrats were still winning Whites without a Bachelors Degree.

As far as Demographics is Destiny I would look up the theory of "Racial Antrophy" in Politcs. It would explain why the Hispanic Voter Turnout is so low compared to their Census Numbers and why Republicans continue to make huge gains as the nation according to the Census becomes more "Diverse".

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.

[GGSETTER]

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 early 2000s, you still had a lot 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]

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.

[GGSETTER]

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.

Well it's true that Republicans will probably never win Blacks again and Democrats will probably never win Whites again the fact is that neither Party has to do this. All they have to do is make slight gains in the other Party's Coalition.

Coalitions don't take decades to change either. Like in 2004 Bush won like 40% of Hispanics and I believe he won Asians. And in 2008 Democrats were still winning Whites without a Bachelors Degree.

As far as Demographics is Destiny I would look up the theory of "Racial Antrophy" in Politcs. It would explain why the Hispanic Voter Turnout is so low compared to their Census Numbers and why Republicans continue to make huge gains as the nation according to the Census becomes more "Diverse".

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.

Wow, listening to you...you'd think the Republican Party would've managed to win the popular vote more than once in the past 20 years, lol.   Everybody everywhere is just LOVING the Republican Party I guess!

Why exactly do you feel compelled to write "LOL" in every single one of your responses? Pot meet kettle. Why don't you go back and look at your responses. You are going out of your way to paint Republicans as "Old White People" who are going to die any second and everyone else as Democrats

[GGSETTER]

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.

There is no evidence what so ever that Clinton lost Pennsylvania because of third party voters. What about all the Republicans who stayed home because Trump was on the ballet? You can make the case either way. Look at the counties in Pa and how they voted. Like Obama actually won Elk County in 2008 and then Trump won it at like 70%. Are you telling me that those were all just Millennial Bernie Bros mad that Bernie lost? The idea that people don't change their political beliefs as they experience life is absolutely ridiculous.

[GGSETTER]

Why exactly do you feel compelled to write "LOL" in every single one of your responses? Pot meet kettle. Why don't you go back and look at your responses. You are going out of your way to paint Republicans as "Old White People" who are going to die any second and everyone else as Democrats

Because you're posts contain so much hyperbole and sometimes it's humorous.

Trump won by appealing to every shrinking demographic in the country,  it's not entirely accurate to say Republicans are just "Old White People" but it is accurate to say their agenda is definitely not the country's future...they're just trying to hold the line more than anything.

Married Couples? Shrinking

Religious people?  Shrinking

White Working Class?  Shrinking

White people overall?  Shrinking

Silent Generation?   Shrinking

People without college degrees?  Shrinking

People who believe in Science?  I dearly hope Shrinking

What hyperbole are you referring to exactly? You are some nerve to talk.

Anyway I have been hearing about how the Republicans have been doomed for the last 8 years yet the GOP just keeps gaining power. I'm suprised that there are still a few people such as yourself that actually believe it. But hey that is your problem not mine.

As a Republican I hope there continues to be a minority of Democrats that choose to bury their heads in the sand and hope that "Muh Demographics" will save them.

[GGSETTER]

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.

I think you have a lot of really good points. Thank you for the intelligent discussion. I just think that Voter Preference is more elastic then a lot of people believe. It least it was in my case