Will the 2024 GOP candidate do better than Trump in suburbs?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Assuming Haley/Abbott/DeSantis or someone is the nominee, probably. I doubt they'll reach Romney 2012 levels in areas like NOVA, but winning back the Romney-Clinton Houston/Phoenix/Dallas/Sunbelt suburbs seems pretty likely outside of areas with special factors like NOVA and government workers.

[TarHeelDem]

No. Suburban culture is simply trending away from conservatism and I don't see any sociopolitical event disrupting that in the next five years.

[Not_A_Doctor]

If Trump is reelected in 2020: definitely not
If Trump loses in 2020: depends on how much the party distances itself from Trump, what the economy is looking like, and who the GOP nominee is.

[Kingpoleon]

This actually wouldn't be unprecedented. Just look at 1920 and 1924. GOP dominance was so extreme by that point that the Dems only got 34.1% and 28.8% respectively in those elections.

It will require the GOP change drastically, just as the Democrats did with FDR, for them to win again if and when it reaches that point.

I don't see our current state of polarization lasting forever, nor do I see Millennials/younger becoming diehard conservatives. So something's gotta give, and it will probably force the GOP to either adapt or die and be replaced by a new party. That also wouldn't be unprecedented -- the GOP itself was formed out of the ashes of the Whigs, which was formed out of the ashes of the Federalists. Only the Democratic Party has endured in one form or another since (almost) the founding of the nation.

Nope nope nope. You can’t say that one party reforms out of others, and that qualifies as “dying,” but the Holy Democratic Party has always existed “in one form or another.” What’s more, this reductionist idea that we’ve always had the dichotomy of today just makes you sound completely stupid.

[2016]

Yes, as long as it isn't Ted Cruz.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Considering how well Cox/Ducey/Abbott etc performed in the same "trending away" suburbs, it seems clear imo that the big change is political and not generational.

[Person Man]

Did "establishment" characters like McCain or Romney do worse with the Religious Right than Bush did?

[slothdem]

Did "establishment" characters like McCain or Romney do worse with the Religious Right than Bush did?

Nope! Relative to overall performance, both McCain and Romney did better with white evangelicals than Bush did (McCain did worse in absolute terms, but also performed 9 points worse overall). That's because candidates don't bring the change in the electorate, rather they result from those changes. Suburbs are not a monolith, and there's a possibility that the next GOP candidate will do better in certain suburbs than Trump, but the suburbs that have diversified (think TX-32 and GA-07) will not back the GOP again and will only continue to trend farther and farther to the left as the olds of today exit the electorate and are replaced with the youngs.

[lfromnj]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Yes and no
2016 trends are clearly white voters flipping. The strongest swings are in the rich white areas. Now minorities provided a base but white voters going from 75-25 R to 60 40 R was the major fact that flipped areas like Tx 7th.

[MT Treasurer]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Considering how well Cox/Ducey/Abbott etc performed in the same "trending away" suburbs, it seems clear imo that the big change is political and not generational.

Or Mitt Romney in 2012, for that matter. The kinds of swings we saw in Orange County, CA or Mason County, WV can’t be explained generational turnover alone, unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.

[lfromnj]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Considering how well Cox/Ducey/Abbott etc performed in the same "trending away" suburbs, it seems clear imo that the big change is political and not generational.

Or Mitt Romney in 2012, for that matter. The kinds of swings we saw in Orange County, CA or Mason County, WV can’t be explained generational turnover alone, unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.

DARIEN CT
+26 Bush 04 Standard TAX CUTS
+9 Mccain 08, PANIC WE NEED SOCIALIZED LOSSES FOR OUR BANKS
2012 + 32 Romney BARACK HUSSEIN OBUMMER PASSED DODD FRANK, cut my dividend by 0.5%. +
2016 +11 Clinton, ORANGE MAN BAD.

[Yellowhammer]

Assuming Haley/Abbott/DeSantis or someone is the nominee, probably. I doubt they'll reach Romney 2012 levels in areas like NOVA, but winning back the Romney-Clinton Houston/Phoenix/Dallas/Sunbelt suburbs seems pretty likely outside of areas with special factors like NOVA and government workers.

The voters in these suburbs have come unhinged -- Trump really broke people and sent them into permanent derangement like no one else could. Most of these places will be voting communist for at least the next generation. Face it.
Hell, if the GOP nominated someone like Baker or Hogan in 2024, even they would probably underperform Romney '12 significantly.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

This would be true if Gen Z was a liberal generation like Millenials, but they aren't. High Schoolers nowadays are much more conservative on social and fiscal issues, and protectionist on economic issues, in contrast to millenials.

*But muh March For Our Lives!*

Gun control is one issue and doesn't really correlate to any other issues. Gen Z generally supports background checks and raising major weapon ownership legality from 18 to 21+. Assault weapon bans are viewed favorably by a slim majority of high and middle schoolers, but they aren't going to vote dem on one issue. The data is already showing the trends.

Overall Gen Z is pretty pessimistic about politics, but the generation is lean R and this is coming from a Gen Z person.

Nice meme.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01/17/generation-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/

[Skill and Chance]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Considering how well Cox/Ducey/Abbott etc performed in the same "trending away" suburbs, it seems clear imo that the big change is political and not generational.

Or Mitt Romney in 2012, for that matter. The kinds of swings we saw in Orange County, CA or Mason County, WV can’t be explained generational turnover alone, unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.

I do think the ~35 y/o Millennial couples buying their single family home in the suburbs and having their 1-3 kids are markedly more liberal than Boomers were at the age when they did the same.  That seems an underrated part of the story.  The suburbs are now taking on these voters that turned many city centers from 65% to 85% Dem during 2004-12, and the center cities are if anything moving a bit to the right since ~2015.  This shows up most in states with small counties.

[Gracile]

The reason the suburbs (especially in the sunbelt) are trending so fast is because of generational turnover so no

Considering how well Cox/Ducey/Abbott etc performed in the same "trending away" suburbs, it seems clear imo that the big change is political and not generational.

Or Mitt Romney in 2012, for that matter. The kinds of swings we saw in Orange County, CA or Mason County, WV can’t be explained generational turnover alone, unless you’re being deliberately obtuse.

I do think the ~35 y/o Millennial couples buying their single family home in the suburbs and having their 1-3 kids are markedly more liberal than Boomers were at the age when they did the same.  That seems an underrated part of the story.  The suburbs are now taking on these voters that turned many city centers from 65% to 85% Dem during 2004-12, and the center cities are if anything moving a bit to the right since ~2015.  This shows up most in states with small counties.

I'd also add that the impetus behind the migration to suburban areas is much different than it was in the mid-to-late 20th century. In many American cities, the price of housing and other living expenses is increasing at a dramatic rate that many people are moving out of the central city to find more affordable options in other parts of the metro area (this is especially true for victims of gentrification). Many of these new suburban residents are not only more left-wing on social issues but also fiscal issues than previous generations of suburbanites.

[Smash255]

Depends on who the candidates are, but it is heading in that direction

The shift in the suburbs, especially the well educated upper middle class ones have been going on since before Trump.  Romney stemmed that tied a bit as we was as good of a GOP candidate for that type of voter, and Trump was pretty much the worst so the trend between 12 and 16 was larger than it otherwise would have been, but the trend was still likely going to be there.  Trump, just accelerated it, and many of these voters aren't coming back.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

No, not until urban poverty is solved, Trump exacerbated the income inequality gap, that was improving when Obama left office. GOP will be the underdog in the following elections, unless a Rubio, who can move Latinos, gets the nomination

[538Electoral]

Maybe.