How can the GOP win back suburbia?

[sg0508]

We used to kill democrats in the suburbs and over the last 20 years, we've slowly lost them.  The platform of the party has changed unfortunately and while it may have helped us in the south to some extent, in the midwest, west coach and northeast, it's really hurt.

IL, PA, VT, NH, ME, CT, NJ, DE, MI, WA, OR and CA used to be our states.  Why?  We would lose the big cities, but would overwhelm the democrats in the suburbs.  The 1988 election is a good example of that.  Bush's small wins in PA, IL and CA were due to his overwhelming margins in the suburbs.

How can we win that voting block back? 

Being a Long Islander, I've seen it change from solidly red (social moderates and economic conservatives) to solidly blue over the past 15-20 years.  It's been the trend in other states I've mentioned too.

[Jensen]

Polarizing social authoritarianism did them in. The suburbs approve of 'tough on crime' stances and generally support pro-business stances.

[memphis]

It's only in certain suburbs that the GOP has problems. They're doing pretty darned well all over the South, the interior West, and parts of the Midwest (Milwaukee, Cincinnati...) If you want to win (or at least do better) in suburban Philly, DC, etc you guys have to turn down the folksiness. People in Bucks county see Sarah Palin and think trailer trash. Politics is, by far, more style than substance.

[sg0508]

The other thing is that we used to do halfway decent in the big cities too.  We would get 1/3 of the Philly vote, 40% in Cooke County, IL, and break 45% in King County, WA. 

Now, it's a joke.

[redcommander]

Republican politicians could start by actually rebuilding and expanding political bases in local office, and federal positions in House districts for example in suburban areas (which is already beginning to develop again). Once that is done, attention can then be put on actually winning back those areas which have trended blue since Bush Sr left office. It's much more difficult to win a Presidential Race in suburban areas, if you don't have a strong local presence first. Also possibly nominating some intelligent and appealing Presidential candidates again could help the Republicans. Another plus would be getting a nonredstater to win in 2012.

[All Along The Watchtower]

If the GOP wants to be competitive in much of suburbia, they must find a way to reach out to the wealthy immigrants and well-educated ethnic whites, not just the people of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and the middle-class Reagan Democrats (many of whom now vote Republican, but they are a swing vote).

Also, economic issues like the deficit and the national debt would be things to focus on, rather than cultural wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage, gun control, or religion in general.

[Smash255]

As someone who is also from Long Island, one key reason is southern Evangelicalism simply doesn't work here.   Trying to overturn Roe V Wade, bashing gay people is going to turn off many more voters then it will bring in.   Also being from LI, I'm sure you know how important investing in public schools and education is here, as much as people complain about property taxes, education funding and spending is key here.  Also with that trying to shove "Creationism" into schools generally don't work well in areas that put a huge importance on .  I would also say LI is more along the lines of economically moderate and socially liberal than economically conservative and socially moderate.

As far as some of the other suburban areas that the GOP has lost a hold on, its pretty much the same types of reasons.  The Evangelical take over of the GOP just doesn't sit well with the well educated middle to upper-middle class suburban voter in many parts of the country.

[Bo]

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. Talk more about crime and about improving education, transportation, and the standard of living. Also moving leftward economically would help as well.

[CJK]

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. Talk more about crime and about improving education, transportation, and the standard of living. Also moving leftward economically would help as well.

In other words, be just like the Democrats.

I think I'll pass.

And by way, can anyone tell me the last time Republicans actually put a heavy emphasis on abortion, gay marriage, or evolution during a campaign?

[President Mitt]

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. Talk more about crime and about improving education, transportation, and the standard of living. Also moving leftward economically would help as well.

In other words, be just like the Democrats.

[CatoMinor]

And by way, can anyone tell me the last time Republicans actually put a heavy emphasis on abortion, gay marriage, or evolution during a campaign?

2008 primaries?

[Bo]

And by way, can anyone tell me the last time Republicans actually put a heavy emphasis on abortion, gay marriage, or evolution during a campaign?

2008 primaries?

Not really. I'd say the last time was in 2000 (in the primaries).

[CJK]

And by way, can anyone tell me the last time Republicans actually put a heavy emphasis on abortion, gay marriage, or evolution during a campaign?

2008 primaries?

Not really. I'd say the last time was in 2000 (in the primaries).

So you're trying to argue that Republican Party problems today are a result of negative public reaction to the 2000 primaries?

[Bo]

And by way, can anyone tell me the last time Republicans actually put a heavy emphasis on abortion, gay marriage, or evolution during a campaign?

2008 primaries?

Not really. I'd say the last time was in 2000 (in the primaries).

So you're trying to argue that Republican Party problems today are a result of negative public reaction to the 2000 primaries?

No, I'm saying that the last time the Republican candidates made a big deal out of wedge issues was back in the 2000 primaries. I didn't say that emphasizing wedge issues led to the Republican Party's downfall. I just answered his question.

[CJK]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

[Bo]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

[Хahar 🤔]

Now, you lose the suburbs, but you win West Virginia. You can't have both.

[Vepres]

Run a campaign like Scott Brown. Focus on issues people care about, and don't talk about social issues unless specifically asked.

[bullmoose88]

Campaign on Efficient and Effective Government, that smaller government more often than not is much more efficient, but that it also can be effective (in delivering the services that people want).  Good schools, and safe communities (yeah, I'll be honest, most suburbanites are socially moderate-liberal, but they do love the idea of the police keeping them safe 24/7...I am less convinced thats a good idea, but its effective).

De-emphasize social issues or take a pragmatic stance about (abortion, gay rights/family values).  Show that, as a party, it accepts (and does not marginalize) those candidates and voters who are pro-choice and pro-gay rights.  Obviously as the conservative party it will be understood that there is an uphill battle for social liberals but at least there won't be a detestable air of open hostility (that our views arent even worth the time of day).  Perhaps conceed some smaller issues like allowing domestic partners to inherit property (without needing a specific provision in the will/intestacy).

There also seems to be, from my view, a distaste for education and educated people by the conservative wing of the party.  I think the evolution/creationist debate is more appropriate here than in the social views (though it could also hit home there).  You have a lot of professional educated people in the suburbs (college degrees, masters, professional degrees, and PhDs) and they really think the GOP has become the party of stupid.

I'm sure someone will disagree, but I will leave this for now and respond later.

[Jensen]

Republican politicians could start by actually rebuilding and expanding political bases in local office, and federal positions in House districts for example in suburban areas (which is already beginning to develop again). Once that is done, attention can then be put on actually winning back those areas which have trended blue since Bush Sr left office. It's much more difficult to win a Presidential Race in suburban areas, if you don't have a strong local presence first. Also possibly nominating some intelligent and appealing Presidential candidates again could help the Republicans. Another plus would be getting a nonredstater to win in 2012.

This is all true, which is why our victories in places like Long Island and New Jersey last year were so meaningful.

[CJK]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

[Boris]

IL, PA, VT, NH, ME, CT, NJ, DE, MI, WA, OR and CA used to be our states.  Why?  We would lose the big cities, but would overwhelm the democrats in the suburbs.  The 1988 election is a good example of that.  Bush's small wins in PA, IL and CA were due to his overwhelming margins in the suburbs.

These weren't (with the exception of NH and ME) "your" states in 1988...They were all more (D) than the national average and Dukakis would have won them in a 50-50 race. There's no really any need to emphasize or de-emphasize any issues; simply hope that the unemployment rate is 10%+ on November 6, 2012 and there you go.

[Smash255]

Um, then why did you say

De-emphasize issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution.

Because I think many suburban voters who might otherwise vote GOP support the Dems on these issues and thus vote for the Dems instead.

Um, you just admitted that these issues have not been emphasized since 2000, so why the need to "de-emphasize" them?

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues.  The FMA for one, all the gay marriage bans that have been put on state ballots.  These are the kind of Christofacist activities which turn off suburban voters.

[Bo]

They may not have been Presidential campaign issues, but they certainly have been issues. 

That's what I meant.

[Guderian]

It's Bill Clinton who took away a big chunk of suburbia (mostly Northeastern, but some other places too) from GOP when he proved that Democrats can help further the economic interests of this group of people just like the Republicans did, while favoring social policies that are closer to their set of values than does espoused by the Republican social conservative wing. What will it take to roll that back? Basically, Obama has to continue governing like a pre-Clinton Democrat and that's it.