How can the Republicans make up ground in the suburbs...

[John Dule]

... while also maintaining the Trump coalition? This seems like a nearly impossible needle to thread. Educated suburban yuppies will never allow themselves to be members of the QAnon Party.

[Annatar]

They don’t need to, just prevent further losses. Trump basically collapsed with college whites everywhere, Indiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas etc and only lost the tipping point state by 0.6%, if he had done just marginally better with non college whites he would have won the election. All the Republicans need to do is gain slightly more with non college whites and continue gains with Hispanics and they will win even if there is zero improvement among college whites. 

[DPKdebator]

I think by default a post-Trump nominee will improve with college whites, as there is a large number of them who may be amiable to voting for Trump's policies but are repulsed by who he is as a person. The risk for the Republicans is that someone more polished may not drum up the same excitement among the working class that Trump's raucous style did.

[DaleCooper]

They can't appeal to suburbanites without alienating the Trump base.

[Roll Roons]

I think the person best suited to do this is Dan Crenshaw. He knows how to throw red meat to the base, but also outperformed Trump by double digits in his increasingly diverse suburban district.

Pre-Bridgegate Chris Christie also fit this description.

[DabbingSanta]

This will be quite easy.  Trump was a uniquely bad candidate and Biden's centrist views were a good fit.  If Sanders were nominated Trump would have at the very least retained his 2016 levels in the suburbs.  The socialist SJW views I see on Twitter every day, which I fear could become part of the mainstream soon, would be just as abhorrent to this group as the alt right.  They want to upend society and cause social disorder and accuse the system as being "white supremacy".  Their rabid racism against white people would not resonate at all.

[Skill and Chance]

I don't expect that they will presidentially, but they don't even necessarily need to for the EC as long as Texas holds.  At the congressional level, they are going to be in good shape because of redistricting and split ticket voting/slower realignment downballot.  But they are now sitting on a bunch of seats that are going to look like 2000's era TN-04, AR-04, or NC-08 in reverse the next time a GOP president midterm comes along.

[Del Tachi]

Liberal Democrats know more about QAnon than Republicans do, lol.

Improving among college-educated Whites isn't as important as many think it is, because it's a relatively small part of the electorate concentrated in a few, mostly uncompetitive states.  States like IA and OH have already become (practically) unwinnable for Democrats based on a collapse in their support among non-college educated Whites.  If the GOP of 2024/28 can improve only marginally with that group, plus keep up the good performances with Cubans and Tejanos then FL, TX, WI, PA and MI slip away from the Democrats.  

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

One thing to keep in mind is that most of these trends are following around the western world, not just the states. Take a look at greater London for example. In 2019, Labour under the leadership of Corbyn (who is a terrible fit for suburbanites) had about the same performance in London's more suburban boroughs as Tony Blair (who is an excellent fit) did in 2005. Of course in 2019 Labour lost to a huge Tory majority, while in 2005 they won a huge majority.

Similar situation in my beloved Canada. Despite losing vote share and seats nationwide in 2019, the Liberals actually broke even in Greater Toronto (despite already having the vast majority of seats), with a lot of the suburban ridings getting even more solid for the Liberals. Similar thing in greater Vancouver. Outside of inner-city Vancouver, Burnaby, and a few other pockets, Metro Vancouver actually used to lean conservative (despite its reputation). This is no longer the case, most tory seats in MetroVan are a result of vote-splitting between the Liberals and the socialist NDP. Provincially, MetroVan recently went heavily for their centre-left NDP government over the centre-right party that historically dominated the area.

The exception is Ontario provincially, where the suburbs went heavily Tory in the 2018 provincial election. Admittedly, Doug Ford was an excellent fit for the suburbs. He's a populist with a slight Trump-like character, but he's pretty embracing of minority communities and his populism is more against the idea of an ineffective, overly powerful government. He and his late brother Rob also have a background of being suburban populists in Toronto's municipal politics. But even this was after 15 years of a Liberal government, and if you know anything about Canadian politics, you know how swingy our electorate can be once they get tired of the party in power (seriously, there was a riding in 2018 that had a 31% swing). In America's polarized atmosphere, that's just not going to happen.

Is this to say the suburbs can't swing back to the Republicans, just because of the trends in Canada and the UK? No, of course not. But just like Democrats trying to win back coal miners in eastern Ohio is probably futile, I think the GOP trying to go back to the suburban playbook is probably not the most efficient use of their resources (sorry Larry Hogan).

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

They won't lol
All they have to do is max out with non college whites and improve with minorities and dems are screwed

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The Republicans need to do precisely the opposite of make up ground in the suburbs.

[Green Line]

The Republicans need to do precisely the opposite of make up ground in the suburbs.

If the GOP is making up ground in NoVA and DuPage County, IL something is deeply, deeply wrong with the party.

[DabbingSanta]

Liberal Democrats know more about QAnon than Republicans do, lol.

The main thing I get out of this is that Twitter and Reddit are really good at spreading fringe views, and that social media has really been a root cause in the misinformation pandemic.

Also very interesting to see that QAnon is discussed more in Democratic circles.

[ProgressiveModerate]

I think it's going to be difficult for them to make up ground in the suburbs without trading some of the gains they have made in rural areas. I agree with what Rolls Roons said; you can come off with a lighter tone, but still throw the Trump base bones here and there, though you risk losing it all and will end up winning neither. Going forwards, it'll definately be interesting to see how the GOP coalition evolves.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I gotta be honest this one is very low-quality for a John Dule thread (unless it was meant as a bait for weak sauce trendologists).

Also do some of you not realize how absurdly broad your brush is? Some takes about "the suburbs" read as though all suburbs in the USA were composed for 90% by White college graduates and used to be Titanium Republican but are now majority Democratic.

[psychprofessor]

First, the R party has a lot of soul searching to do to figure out what it actually stands for. As of now there is no governing philosophy. Are they the party of low tax, big business or isolationism, tariffs and trade wars?

Are they for gutting safety net programs? Abolishing health care?

Do they want to build a wall? Deport undocumented immigrants? Curtail refugee programs?

Do they want to overturn Roe V Wade? Ban SSM?

In the Trump era, he often times went along with R legislation while himself proclaiming to be more moderate on issues. In 2016 he was against cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Many saw him nonchalant about SSM.

But what direction does the R party want to go? If they careen down a path of baseless conspiracy theories, COVID denialism, anti-science and QAnon hugging I don't see where college educated whites or the suburbs fit into this.

[It’s so Joever]

First, the R party has a lot of soul searching to do to figure out what it actually stands for. As of now there is no governing philosophy. Are they the party of low tax, big business or isolationism, tariffs and trade wars?

Are they for gutting safety net programs? Abolishing health care?

Do they want to build a wall? Deport undocumented immigrants? Curtail refugee programs?

Do they want to overturn Roe V Wade? Ban SSM?

In the Trump era, he often times went along with R legislation while himself proclaiming to be more moderate on issues. In 2016 he was against cutting Medicare and Medicaid. Many saw him nonchalant about SSM.

But what direction does the R party want to go? If they careen down a path of baseless conspiracy theories, COVID denialism, anti-science and QAnon hugging I don't see where college educated whites or the suburbs fit into this.

NO MORE HOSPITALS! NO MORE DOCTORS! WE DEMAND DISEASE! (Honestly not that far off)

[The Houstonian]

This will be quite easy.  Trump was a uniquely bad candidate and Biden's centrist views were a good fit.  If Sanders were nominated Trump would have at the very least retained his 2016 levels in the suburbs.  The socialist SJW views I see on Twitter every day, which I fear could become part of the mainstream soon, would be just as abhorrent to this group as the alt right.  They want to upend society and cause social disorder and accuse the system as being "white supremacy".  Their rabid racism against white people would not resonate at all.

Bernie neither resonates with these people nor targets them on the same level as Trump does with the alt-right. Also, if you are on Twitter every day, you are on Twitter too much.

[BaldEagle1991]

One thing you guys have to realize a lot of suburban areas are diversifying rapidly.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Republican loss in the suburbs is not driven by what a lot of you people think it is.

1. The softening and flipping of a lot of suburbs is driven by diversification and/or generational change, meaning the same agenda that won them overwhelmingly in 1985 is minority view now in those areas.

2. The loss of actual support among traditional GOP support in these areas (dwindling in political power though it may be) is driven by incompetence and stupidity more so then a tangible shift in GOP ideological mix.

Here is the three easiest things you can do to begin with.

1. Run a Presidential Nominee that passes the red phone/Commander in Chief test, doesn't blow off intelligence briefings, play fast and loose with protocol, etc etc.

2. Abandon this mindset that civic nationalism/populism/whatever you want to call it, can only happen by nuking UMC types. This is horrendously misguided notion based on largely the same broad brushing, generalizations that people do with Hispanics as a group. Any Republican or Conservative is going to have a strong pitch to UMC, even with a nationalist orientation simply because you are not a socialist and less inclined to redistribute their money.

3. Actually have an education plan that is more than just education back to the states and school choice. Not saying you should abandon them, but most of these suburban areas are conscious about the public school system and want a policy to reform it and since 2010 all Republicans seem to want to do, backed by billions of Koch money is dismantle the public education system.

This will stabilize with white suburban, rich and older types. These people adored Mitt Self Deportation Romney", which gets to another point. A lot of people keep conflating Mitt Romney with Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and forget that Romney ran as the toughest candidate on the border in two straight election cylce, and he was adored in high end white UMC areas either because of it, or in spite of it (varies based on area).

The idea that you have to be doing horrendously in the suburbs or be a Neocon/Neoliberal is blatant misrepresentation of the facts on the ground and any political consultant/adviser pushing this silly notion should be fired and dumped along with the Steve Schmidt's of the world.



Part II. Beyond the traditional right leaners, it depends on what your goal is and what the state is. A state like Illinois requires a far higher suburban baseline then say Indiana or Ohio.

The younger generations are concerned about climate change, college debt, health care and similar issues so either acknowledging them and trying to solve them or letting the Democrats solve them too much is the long term answer to cracking into these voters.

As for minorities, you need to break them down by communities and then micro target the hell out of those groups. Frankly speaking, the Republicans are under par with many of these groups compared to where they should be and most of that is because of self inflicted problems, Trump or lack of effort.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This will stabilize with white suburban, rich and older types. These people adored Mitt Self Deportation Romney", which gets to another point. A lot of people keep conflating Mitt Romney with Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and forget that Romney ran as the toughest candidate on the border in two straight election cylce, and he was adored in high end white UMC areas either because of it, or in spite of it (varies based on area).

The idea that you have to be doing horrendously in the suburbs or be a Neocon/Neoliberal is blatant misrepresentation of the facts on the ground and any political consultant adviser pushing this sill notion should be fired and dumped along with the Steve Schmidt's of the world.

Also saw these articles about Romney:


https://reason.com/2012/10/30/romney-has-the-edge-in-the-bipartisan-pr/

The title of that Article is that Romney is the most protectionist GOP candidate in living memory

https://www.cato.org/blog/mitt-romneys-contrived-trade-war

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This will stabilize with white suburban, rich and older types. These people adored Mitt Self Deportation Romney", which gets to another point. A lot of people keep conflating Mitt Romney with Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and forget that Romney ran as the toughest candidate on the border in two straight election cylce, and he was adored in high end white UMC areas either because of it, or in spite of it (varies based on area).

The idea that you have to be doing horrendously in the suburbs or be a Neocon/Neoliberal is blatant misrepresentation of the facts on the ground and any political consultant adviser pushing this sill notion should be fired and dumped along with the Steve Schmidt's of the world.

Also saw these articles about Romney:


https://reason.com/2012/10/30/romney-has-the-edge-in-the-bipartisan-pr/

The title of that Article is that Romney is the most protectionist GOP candidate in living memory

https://www.cato.org/blog/mitt-romneys-contrived-trade-war

Yes, this trumpist characterization of Romney as a neoliberal clone of Paul Ryan is historical revisionism. Romney was a proto-Trump on the issues and only picked Ryan to suck up to the donors he desperately needed money from.

If we had a system where donors were irrelevant and both sides had the same amount of money, Romney would have gone more economically populist. Hell he even endorsed hiking the minimum wage in 2013.

[OSR stands with Israel]

This will stabilize with white suburban, rich and older types. These people adored Mitt Self Deportation Romney", which gets to another point. A lot of people keep conflating Mitt Romney with Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and forget that Romney ran as the toughest candidate on the border in two straight election cylce, and he was adored in high end white UMC areas either because of it, or in spite of it (varies based on area).

The idea that you have to be doing horrendously in the suburbs or be a Neocon/Neoliberal is blatant misrepresentation of the facts on the ground and any political consultant adviser pushing this sill notion should be fired and dumped along with the Steve Schmidt's of the world.

Also saw these articles about Romney:


https://reason.com/2012/10/30/romney-has-the-edge-in-the-bipartisan-pr/

The title of that Article is that Romney is the most protectionist GOP candidate in living memory

https://www.cato.org/blog/mitt-romneys-contrived-trade-war

Yes, this trumpist characterization of Romney as a neoliberal clone of Paul Ryan is historical revisionism. Romney was a proto-Trump on the issues and only picked Ryan to suck up to the donors he desperately needed money from.

If we had a system where donors were irrelevant and both sides had the same amount of money, Romney would have gone more economically populist. Hell he even endorsed hiking the minimum wage in 2013.

Yah and in January 2008 many analysts were calling him the best candidate for the Rust Belt among the final Republican contenders(McCain, Rudy, Thompson, Huckabee) but among the worst for the south.

[Nightcore Nationalist]

Yes, threading the needle between the rural and suburban areas will be tough, but not impossible.


Run as a moderate.  Trump in 2016 ran on $1 Trillion infrastructure deals, middle eastern dovishness, apathy on SSM and preserving entitlements while keeping conservatives happy with things like originalist judges, anti gun control, cutting regulations and limiting legal and illegal immigration.  Trump in 2020 ran a campaign much more like a traditional Republican, decrying socialism against the neoliberal Joe Biden.  I believe if Trump governed closer to his 2016 campaign (and the GOP congress didn't oppose it) then he would have been in a better position for re-election.

The 2024 GOP nominee needs to address things that the MAGA base care about to drive turnout, but be moderate (or at least be perceived as moderate) enough to appeal to the suburbs.  My main gripe with the establishment GOPers is their electoral strategy of being economically (and often socially) far to the right is several cycles out of date.  That worked in 2004, it even worked in 2012 but most purple suburbs today don't want a Ted Cruz.  Any smart Republican will triage SSM and pro-Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq intervention, and maybe do something like DeSantis's environmental policies or Hawley's prescription drug regulation.

[John Dule]

Run as a moderate.  Trump in 2016 ran on $1 Trillion infrastructure deals, middle eastern dovishness, apathy on SSM and preserving entitlements while keeping conservatives happy with things like originalist judges, anti gun control, cutting regulations and limiting legal and illegal immigration.  Trump in 2020 ran a campaign much more like a traditional Republican, decrying socialism against the neoliberal Joe Biden.  I believe if Trump governed closer to his 2016 campaign (and the GOP congress didn't oppose it) then he would have been in a better position for re-election.

This implies that Trump's base noticed (or cared) that he didn't follow through on his policy promises. I don't think there's much evidence for that.