Should Democrats be concerned about maintaining their margins in urban centers?

[ProgressiveModerate]

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?

[EastwoodS]

Detroit is one that I would defiantly keep my eye on

[If my soul was made of stone]

A decent amount of those urban areas are still declining in population, so where their emigrants are going can make up for it depending on where they're going (New Great Migration into Atlanta works well for Dems, moving from Detroit to Denver is now exacerbating Dem slippage in Michigan). Given that the county's been steadily hemorrhaging population since the 1970s, I wonder how much of Trump's victory in Mahoning County can be attributed to Democratic-leaning voters leaving in the interim after its massive 12-16 swing.

[Oregon Eagle Politics]

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?

Biden made big improvements in the Maj-White parts of Dallas, which caused the county as a whole to swing hard to the left.

[ملكة كرينجيتوك]

This should be a poll. And yes, I don’t want to see a “multiracial working class” GOP become a thing before the Dems get healthcare reform and comprehensive climate action plans passed.

Perhaps it's just me, but I think that the contradiction of winning the votes of both the urban poor and the yuppies gentrifying the neighborhood will eventually kill the Democratic machines in the cities - it simply can't last forever. I'm just not sure what it will be replaced with.

Eventually the contradictions in the Democratic coalition will become apparent. You can't have the gentrifiers and the gentrified in alliance for long before people start asking questions.

[It’s so Joever]

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.

[It’s so Joever]

Detroit is one that I would defiantly keep my eye on

Keep an eye on Cleveland. It isn’t a swing state, but it could be very revealing.

[DCUS]

Trump's large gains among certain Hispanic and Asian ethnicities are part of the reason (sorry, I don't have the privilege of posting links) A New York Times article named "Immigrant Neighborhoods Shifted Red as the Country Chose Blue" explains this with maps of various urban areas.

[E-Dawg]

Trump's large gains among certain Hispanic and Asian ethnicities are part of the reason (sorry, I don't have the privilege of posting links) A New York Times article named "Immigrant Neighborhoods Shifted Red as the Country Chose Blue" explains this with maps of various urban areas.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/20/us/politics/election-hispanics-asians-voting.html

[Catalyst138]

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.

Boise definitely isn’t large enough to determine the whole state. Dems could handily win Ada county but that won’t change the fact that Idaho is safe R.

[ProgressiveModerate]

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.

Boise definitely isn’t large enough to determine the whole state. Dems could handily win Ada county but that won’t change the fact that Idaho is safe R.

No, but between Boise growing and improving in a bunch of other smaller cities throughout the state could set the Democrats in a good place to make ID competative down the road. MT, UT, KS, and AK are examples of where this sort of strategy may be achievable in the near future.

[ProgressiveModerate]

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.

For the sake of the House and Senate, that may be true, but if IL and/or NY become competative on the Presidential level for instance, that could cause some real issues. It could also revert GA to being red and basically any state where politics are dominated by 1 specific city gets redder.

[It’s so Joever]

No, because this reduces our geographical disadvantage.
We should still campaign in these places and try our best to get as many votes as possible, but the current geography is awful for Dems. These new shifts aren’t a terrible thing if we can balance them out with other gains.
If anything we should prioritize doing better in Mid size cities/towns in smaller states such as Boise, SLC, and Anchorage where the city itself is large enough to determine the state.

For the sake of the House and Senate, that may be true, but if IL and/or NY become competative on the Presidential level for instance, that could cause some real issues. It could also revert GA to being red and basically any state where politics are dominated by 1 specific city gets redder.

Again, I am implying improved Dem suburban performances which should keep GA competitive. NY has a lot of room to fall although IL is concerning in this scenario.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?

I think this is way over-selling Republican prospects in cities.

Trump gained something like 2-5% in a lot of these cores (as stated elsewhere there was a lot of heterogeneity that had to do with race/income that somewhat cancelled each other out) while he lost double digits in suburbs. The suburban trend is clearer, more consistent over time, and much larger in magnitude than a one-off in cities. I need to see a larger shift before I get more concerned (and the Georgia runoff turnout in Fulton/DeKalb were very encouraging).

Even still, the city margins are still kinda deceptive. In most cities Biden and Trump both gained over respective 2016 performances. Trump just happened to gain a little bit more, and through a statistical quirk from the fact that Trump's 2016 performance was in the toilet, an equivalent number of votes added to both sides naturally eats away at Democratic margins.

Example is Queens NY:

2020    26.9% 212,665    72.0% 569,038
2016    21.8% 149,341    75.4% 517,220

Trump gained 63K votes over his 2016 performance while Biden only gained 51K. That means Biden only lost 12.5K votes off of prior margins. That isn't really much to be concerned about, especially if you're pulling in huge gains in Westchester-type places. Plus, we have no idea who these fresh voters were and how likely they are to vote in the future. Add to that the fact that we really have no clue how much D turnout was hampered by lack of door knocking and shutting down social spaces typically used to register and/or drive out voters.

[TransfemmeGoreVidal]

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?

I don't think it's actually a trend but more of a COVID specific thing. There's a lot of service workers in cities who normally wouldn't vote for a Republican but were opposed to another round of lockdowns because they feared losing their jobs. It's actually more likely IMO that the suburbs trend back ever so slightly post-Trump then we see any lasting gains for Republicans in the cities.

[wbrocks67]

The premise that NY and IL need to be watched "down the road" is ridiculous.

And there are numerous factors why cities trended a bit red this cycle, and many of them are questionable if they'll continue in 2024 given the circumstances this year.

[Red Wall]

Trump gains were marginal and a product of his improvement with minorities.

But I'd be focused on three black majority swing state cities: Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. Millwaukee is probably the most problematic one, the post Obama turnout has been lackluster and any dropoff here places a huge burden on Madison to deliver the state to dems. Detroit is losing population but is still the dems biggest vote getter in Michigan and they can't counter its slide even by gaining votes in Oakland and Kent counties. Philadelphia is the least problematic one margins wise given that even under lower % margins Biden netted more votes there than any dem nominee but it has the most R friendly eras especially in South and Northeast Philly. There is also Las Vegas who would be ground zero for a dem hispanic dropoff and a rise in Washoe won't be enough to counter shrinking margins in Clark given 80% of Nevada lives there.

[Chips]

Of course.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

One thing I'm surprised more people are talking about is how despite many suburbs swinging hard left, many city centers like Philadelphia, New York, Chicago, Dallas, LA, ect, ect swung right. For the most part, these cities are so one sided that only winning a district 80-20 as opposed to 90-10 isn't going to make a difference, but if the GOP can continue to make gains in these city centers as Trump did, it might cancel out some of the suburban trend, and could potentially bring states like NY and IL into play down the road. What do you think?

I think you just answered your own question.

Not to mention, Trump's percents in LA & San Francisco were the 2nd worst for a Republican in 104 years, next to his 2016 performance.

Or that Trump percents in San Diego, Orange & Riverside Counties were the 4th worst for a Republican since 1912.

But yeah, California Democrats oughta be scared sh*tless

[pikachu]

Yeah, Dems should be somewhat concerned because it’s a symptom of the struggles that Biden had with minority voters and further slippage in big cities makes the upward climb in swing states more difficult, but imo losing a core blue state city on the federal level is just unrealistic.

I could see an American Rob Ford type winning a mayoral or state election in blue state/city by running against gentrifiers, the liberal elite, and whatever if the conditions are right (though honestly I feel like there’s still room for that in a Democratic primary). But on a national level, I’m still skeptical of a true multicultural right-wing coalition emerging – the electoral power of race-baiting within a Republican primary is still too strong and tempting.

[kwabbit]

Republicans are not going to win cities or get anywhere close for a long, long time, but the margins they're getting matter a whole lot. If Democrats need to win Detroit by 80+ points to win Michigan, then Republicans even getting 15% in it, for example, would hurt Dems a great deal. Perhaps the suburban trends could make it a moot point, but relying on getting basically every vote in many urban areas provides some shaky ground in a lot of Midwestern states. They can only go down, and as long as Democrats have dominated urban POC, that seems to be slipping. If Black voters start voting 80% instead of 90-95%, that would be it for Democrats in the Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

[Roll Roons]

Republicans are not going to win cities or get anywhere close for a long, long time, but the margins they're getting matter a whole lot. If Democrats need to win Detroit by 80+ points to win Michigan, then Republicans even getting 15% in it, for example, would hurt Dems a great deal. Perhaps the suburban trends could make it a moot point, but relying on getting basically every vote in many urban areas provides some shaky ground in a lot of Midwestern states. They can only go down, and as long as Democrats have dominated urban POC, that seems to be slipping. If Black voters start voting 80% instead of 90-95%, that would be it for Democrats in the Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc.

At that point, Illinois and New Jersey would likely come into play, with New York also getting closer. If anything, maybe improving with the urban black vote is how Republicans can stop the bleeding in Georgia, although the dynamics there are different from the North.

[pbrower2a]

The only ways in which Democrats can win much of anything is to win the giant cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Or maybe Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston, Miami, Phoenix, San Antonio, Tampa-Saint Pete.

Face it: they couldn't win Illinois without Greater Chicago, Minnesota without winning big in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nevada without Greater Las Vegas, or Washington without Seattle. If they ever win Ohio again it will be because such cities on life support as Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo get some vitality back. 

[Fusternino]

No. If anything the swings from 2020 general to 2021 runoff for the GA Senate races shows that Trump's gains with Black and Hispanic men in urban centers were unique to him and not a benefit to the GOP at large.

[Interlocutor is just not there yet]

The only ways in which Democrats can win much of anything is to win the giant cities such as Detroit, Milwaukee, and Philadelphia. Or maybe Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Dallas-Fort Worth, El Paso, Houston, Miami, Phoenix, San Antonio, Tampa-Saint Pete.

Face it: they couldn't win Illinois without Greater Chicago, Minnesota without winning big in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nevada without Greater Las Vegas, or Washington without Seattle. If they ever win Ohio again it will be because such cities on life support as Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo get some vitality back.  

"The only ways in which Democrats can win most of anything is to win the areas which make up a significant chunk of a states population"