Suburban gains: Demographic Change or Newly Liberal Whites

[Del Tachi]

Let's start here, as I want to put this unequivocally on the record:

What're the demographic breakdowns of your "favored quarters" using 2018 CVAP vs 2010 Census?  Total population changes?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Another option: Are some of these suburban voters right of center people who have a deep personal antipathy to Trump but would be fine with voting for most other Republicans? Examples of this type of person may be people like George W. Bush or the writer David French (neither have endorsed Biden but neither one is voting for Trump)?

Also, question I've had for a long time: When the media talks about Rockefeller Republican types, some of the recent blue state R governors, maybe Brian Fitzpatrick, etc. as "fiscally conservative, socially moderate," what is the difference between "socially moderate" and "socially liberal/progressive?" Why do people not use the latter?

Such groupings and labelings are often shallow and poorly construed and/or miss applied. Not every rich Republican, who is socially moderate is a Rockefeller. A good example of this is the fact that Goldwater himself was socially moderate supporting Gays in the military and favoring Abortion rights, as well as saying the Christian Right scared the hell out of him.

At the same time, Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania was certainly representing a high end area, the Montco based PA-13 and then he went to the Senate for 12 years. He was known for being pro-gun and his election was attributed to the support of Gun groups. He also ran against abortion, though his specific position is debatable. He was considered a liberal Republican though, because he was pro-Labor, anti-war and endorsed Nixon's impeachment.

Nelson Rockefeller himself was very tough on crime, supported the war on drugs and it is worth noting that Henry Kissinger came out of his political orbit.

The basic divide between Rockefeller and Goldwater came down two major areas, one of which was ideological and the other was cultural.
1. Rather to continue tacit acceptance of the New Deal Programs and its legacy as the NE Republicans had to do for survival purposes in the heavily unionized Northeast, or to break with the New Deal legacy in favor of a return to 1920s era classical liberal economics (now partnered with free trade instead of protectionism), and working to build a new base for this new right in the sunbelt. Throwing Civil Rights under the bus was necessary to facilitate the latter.

2. The historical cultural divide both regionally and internally to New York City Politics of Yankees+WASPS versus the Germans, Irish, Italians and outside of New York: Southerners. This also meant that Republicans and the right would cease to be defined as the establishmentarian polity as it has been in opposition to the New Deal, opposition to TR, Opposition to Populism and WJB and going on further back. This was a concession to the obvious reality that New Deal Liberalism now owned the establishment institutions of law, academia and media hence the leftward drift in areas it influenced during the 1960s and the resulting leftward pull on Republicans representing those districts, a trend discussed in detail by Kevin Phillips in the Emerging Republican Majority, Page 101: "During the ninetieth Congress, the voting records of GOP congressmen from rural and small city Yankee districts trended emphatically leftward. Whereas the liberal contingent had been a minority even among Northeastern Republicans in previous sessions, it now became a Majority.")

 
A lot of the people classified today as being Rockefeller Republicans many times are being done so wrongly. You could even say that Hawley has more in common with Rockefeller then some of these socially moderate ficons, simply because he is recognizing a need for economic intervention.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Let's start here, as I want to put this unequivocally on the record:

What're the demographic breakdowns of your "favored quarters" using 2018 CVAP vs 2010 Census?  Total population changes?

Atlanta, favored quarter:
2010 Census:

White	645,737
Hispanic	118,162
Black	135,253
Asian	99,342
Other	9,539

2018 CVAP:

White	533,214
Hispanic	37,648
Black	108,974
Asian	57,055
Other	4,727

Atlanta, rest of metro:
2010 Census:

White	1,333,514
Hispanic	379,932
Black	1,499,116
Asian	176,023
Other	36,995

2018 CVAP:

White	1,045,723
Hispanic	139,577
Black	1,178,547
Asian	102,590
Other	16,781

Chicago, favored quarter:
2010 Census:

White	809,399
Hispanic	241,176
Black	139,935
Asian	153,587
Other	14,337

2018 CVAP:

White	533,214
Hispanic	114,810
Black	91,766
Asian	97,558
Other	5,308

Chicago, rest of metro:
2010 Census:

White	3,821,483
Hispanic	1,648,994
Black	1,541,827
Asian	437,610
Other	68,403

2018 CVAP:

White	2,873,352
Hispanic	806,758
Black	1,069,561
Asian	264,000
Other	20,603

Dallas, favored quarter:
2010 VAP:

White	594,049
Hispanic	206,183
Black	102,969
Asian	93,813
Other	12,095

2018 CVAP:

White	662,045
Hispanic	128,615
Black	126,528
Asian	86,264
Other	11,815

Dallas, rest of metro:
2010 VAP:

White	1,409,330
Hispanic	795,274
Black	556,734
Asian	173,149
Other	42,833

2018 CVAP:

White	1,413,419
Hispanic	582,349
Black	619,850
Asian	148,490
Other	28,594

Houston, favored quarter:
2010 VAP:

White	390,220
Hispanic	251,596
Black	148,057
Asian	125,113
Other	11,391

2018 CVAP:

White	396,320
Hispanic	156,624
Black	142,942
Asian	107,193
Other	5,347

Houston, rest of metro:
2010 VAP:

White	1,169,254
Hispanic	1,020,722
Black	560,033
Asian	186,212
Other	36,965

2018 CVAP:

White	1,212,509
Hispanic	797,699
Black	632,174
Asian	172,927
Other	19,861

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

Let's start here, as I want to put this unequivocally on the record:

What're the demographic breakdowns of your "favored quarters" using 2018 CVAP vs 2010 Census?  Total population changes?

-snip-

Do you not have citizen VAP data from the 2010 Census? That would be more useful than just the census count or just the total VAP. It’s hard to accurately gauge changes in the eligible voting population if we’re comparing apples to oranges.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Its blatantly based on shifts among white voters. Its worth noting that many of these suburban areas that were known for making a big stampede to the left in 2016 actually trended to the right in 2012.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Do you not have citizen VAP data from the 2010 Census? That would be more useful than just the census count or just the total VAP. It’s hard to accurately gauge changes in the eligible voting population if we’re comparing apples to oranges.

Unfortunately I don't.

[Intell]

It's done by white voters mainly, which is this such a debate. Romney won the wealthy educated vote in 2012 in the NYC suburbs comfortably- in 2016, Clinton won this group comfortably as well.

[Del Tachi]

Do you not have citizen VAP data from the 2010 Census? That would be more useful than just the census count or just the total VAP. It’s hard to accurately gauge changes in the eligible voting population if we’re comparing apples to oranges.

Unfortunately I don't.

Doesn't DRA have 2010 VAP data, at least?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Do you not have citizen VAP data from the 2010 Census? That would be more useful than just the census count or just the total VAP. It’s hard to accurately gauge changes in the eligible voting population if we’re comparing apples to oranges.

Unfortunately I don't.

Doesn't DRA have 2010 VAP data, at least?

Depends on the state. I gave it for Texas but it wouldn't load in Georgia and Illinois/Indiana.

[mileslunn]

this is sort of off topic but I've noticed that in a lot of wealthy republican families - at least one of the kids is a lefty. But does that actually change the electorate in rich republican areas? So for instance if you have a republican husband and wife in north fulton with liberal kids - chances are there kids don't live in North Fulton, they probably live in five points (if they live in metro atl) or out of state.

Very true and that is easy to explain.  If doing well financially, you can focus on social justice causes and any policies to adopt them like dealing with climate change won't impact you financially thus easy to support them.  If working class, more likely to require personal sacrifice thus more likely to oppose it.  Also on higher taxes on rich, I've found those who earned it more against it than those who inherited it.  In latter category some even feel guilty thus favor higher taxes on rich as they have more than many peers who work just as hard or harder.  Whereas if you earned it, you put in long hours and took risks so more likely to be against idea of more of it being taxed.

Also on tax front, many rich actually saw their taxes go up under Trump.  Most uber rich are in blue states and Trump put a 10K cap on SALT so if you are making a million a year and living in California, your top marginal rate pre-Trump was 47.6% but now 50.3%.  Now if you lived in a state with no taxes or low state taxes then yes rich got a tax cut.  In addition top rates effect a very small number of Americans so most wealthy are not going to see their taxes hiked by Joe Biden as only 1-2% of Americans make over 400K a year.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

this is sort of off topic but I've noticed that in a lot of wealthy republican families - at least one of the kids is a lefty. But does that actually change the electorate in rich republican areas? So for instance if you have a republican husband and wife in north fulton with liberal kids - chances are there kids don't live in North Fulton, they probably live in five points (if they live in metro atl) or out of state.

Very true and that is easy to explain.  If doing well financially, you can focus on social justice causes and any policies to adopt them like dealing with climate change won't impact you financially thus easy to support them.  If working class, more likely to require personal sacrifice thus more likely to oppose it.  Also on higher taxes on rich, I've found those who earned it more against it than those who inherited it.  In latter category some even feel guilty thus favor higher taxes on rich as they have more than many peers who work just as hard or harder.  Whereas if you earned it, you put in long hours and took risks so more likely to be against idea of more of it being taxed.

Also on tax front, many rich actually saw their taxes go up under Trump.  Most uber rich are in blue states and Trump put a 10K cap on SALT so if you are making a million a year and living in California, your top marginal rate pre-Trump was 47.6% but now 50.3%.  Now if you lived in a state with no taxes or low state taxes then yes rich got a tax cut.  In addition top rates effect a very small number of Americans so most wealthy are not going to see their taxes hiked by Joe Biden as only 1-2% of Americans make over 400K a year.

Your first paragraph is very true, but it doesn’t mean the children of 1%-rich or PMC families are generally more left-leaning than children from poor, working-class, or lower-middle class families. It just means that the political/activist/Twittercrat class is mostly drawn from White, ADOS Black, and 2nd+ generation PMC-to-“1% rich” families.

...Alief is not favored quarter.

...because it’s overwhelmingly nonwhite, or because it’s actually economically downscale? The NYT post-election analysis said it’s a mostly Vietnamese, Mexican, and Nigerian nonwhite immigrant area. Alief swung significantly more R than adjacent Sugar Land in Fort Bend County, which swung D.

[Sol]

...Alief is not favored quarter.

...because it’s overwhelmingly nonwhite, or because it’s actually economically downscale? The NYT post-election analysis said it’s a mostly Vietnamese, Mexican, and Nigerian nonwhite immigrant area. Alief swung significantly more R than adjacent Sugar Land in Fort Bend County, which swung D.

Both--you can see it on the income map linked here. 

[Torie]

This is a fascinating thread, that I have now taken the time to read. Thank you to those who put so much work in it.

My instinct is that the structural changes in the economy have a lot to do with it. High volume industrial manufacturing has declined and the global economy has largely killed off private sector labor unions, so the labor management divide no longer has much salience, high paying jobs are now much more oriented to processing information, and the Democratic Party has ceased to represent a threat to the standard of living of the white gentry. Also, big cities becoming desirable places to live, and the drastic decline of crime there, has I think made a big difference. To the extent these changes continue to evolve in perhaps other directions (say city crime zooming back up), or the Democratic party becomes more redistributionist, the Pub party abandoning most of its social conservatism, or the Dem Party becoming more  protectionist, it will be interesting to see if these political trends hold up.