How do Democrats Appeal to the Exurbs?

This LA Times article I post below is a very good analysis of voting patterns. Essentially, where we got killed was suburbs, and not just any suburbs, but exurbs - the newer, more lower-middle class fast-growing counties. Filled with mostly white, younger families, the exurbs voting overwhelmingly Republican and provided Bush half of his popular vote margin and his margin of victory in many states. The exurbs also kept Kerry from doing better in Virginia, North Carolina, and Colorado, states were Kerry did significantly better than Gore in urban areas and more established suburban areas.

So what to do about them? They're growing very fast, and in the last 8 years, these counties have become MORE Republican. Ruy Teixeira and John Judis in The Emering Democratic Majority said not to worry about exurbs because they still were very small and as they grow larger they'll become more metro and more mixed politically.

The problem with this analysis in my opinion is that it's too long-term. The exurbs, if their pattern of development matches other suburbs, will likely eventually become more mixed politically and more cosmopolitan. The problem is that I see this as a long-term trend, not one that will manifest itself in the next few cycles. I don't see this happening for some time, and so we need to somehow cut the margins down in these counties, even if we don't win them. Otherwise, we're going to have a difficult time winning.

My own belief is that we need to somehow combine a strong national security message with Edwards' Two Americas theme and Midde-Class squeeze. Kerry did much of this, but clearly this has to be pushed harder.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-fast22nov22,1,2248079.story?coll=la-news-politics-national

Together, these fast-growing communities provided Bush a punishing 1.72 million vote advantage over Democrat John F. Kerry, according to a Times analysis of election results. That was almost half the president's total margin of victory.

"These exurban counties are the new Republican areas, and they will become increasingly important to Republican candidates," said Terry Nelson, the political director for Bush's reelection campaign. "This is where a lot of our vote is."

These growing areas, filled largely with younger families fleeing urban centers in search of affordable homes, are providing the GOP a foothold in blue Democratic-leaning states and solidifying the party's control over red Republican-leaning states.

<snip>

In states like Ohio, Minnesota and Virginia, Republican strength in these outer suburbs is offsetting Democratic gains over the last decade in more established — and often more affluent — inner-tier suburbs. As Democrats analyze a demoralizing defeat in this month's presidential election, one key question they face is whether they can reduce the expanding Republican advantage on the new frontier between suburbs and countryside.

the shrinking middle class and the two Americas themes are all pertinent. But as Democrats we have been hung with "tax and spend" like a mantra from the right for decades. Republicans, in the meantime, have sold the image of themselves as protectors of the middle class' poicketbook. We all know that the Republicans are not protecting the middle class' pocketbook, and that the current spend and don't tax policy is going to sink the middle class.

It might also be useful to consider how government funding and spending works in metro areas and the surrounding suburbs. Let me use Shreveport/Bossier as an example if I can. Shreveport is a city of about 200,000, and across the Red River is Bossier City of about 90,000. Shreveport is bigger, almost 50% African-American, has most of the jobs, most of the public facilities, most of the colleges, and needs tax money to pay for these services and buildings that people who live in Shreveport and people who live in Bossier but work or go to school in Shreveport use. Bossier is mostly white, richer, more Republican, has a better school system, higher property values, etc. Basically, Bossier is a suburb/exurban area and has the ability to generate lots of money because people are earning their money in the metro area and then making a home in the suburbs where taxes aren't as high because there aren't as many public services that you need to fund. The suburbs are nicer places to live, but they have a tendency to drain resources from the metro areas that fuel the local economy. I would assume the problem is even worse in metro areas of greater than 200,000.

Could this be part of the reason that suburbs and exurbans tend to be Republican? It is in the metro areas that the need for government intervention into the free market and wealth distribution - on some level other than city-wide - becomes really obvious. If we can address the way metro areas and the suburbs interact, maybe we can get more people to think of themselves as metropolitan. And as people begin to identify more with those heavily Dem areas, they just might become Dems themselves.

which automatically makes them more likely to vote republican.

i think if we can neutralize the religious part we can easily win on the issues that matter afterwards.

or what you call them. The answer is the same. We must clarify our position while showing why the neo-con position does not serve them. The vast majority of Americans are in agreement us on the issues, but we have done, evidently, a poor job of showing why our positions underline real American values.

Those are the people who won this election. It's important to correct the notion that low income people voted Republican, they didn't. Neither did small towns, they went 50/50.

The suburbs, exactly. And I'll have to say, crime and racism and a perceived lack of moral values in cities. Because that's where the nudie bars and all the rest are at. The ones the guys in the suburbs go to.

Attack hypocrisy???

high' that the repubs boast about. They think they've found the good life, and thank * for it, just because he happened to be in the WH. These homes bought with nothing or little down, and in the past few years refinanced out of their equity, will be real vulnerable when the real estate bubble bursts, probably in the next few months.

They may regret their votes, then.

I live in VA and I have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen this term before, but I don't understand it. Where are these places? Examples? I live in a pretty wealthy suburb of Richmond, VA called Henrico and although Bush did win in our county, it wasn't by that much. However, Chesterfield and Hanover are two close counties that are a little bit more rural (have the reputation for being a little bit more NASCAR although part of them are still very developed) and the vote for Bush was a lot higher there. But I wouldn't say they are lower class areas. Richmond city was overwhelmingly Kerry--more black people, college, liberals in the area.

So what exactly is an exurb, and why haven't I seen one?

exburbs are the outer ring of suburbs around a major city in the process of rapid growth and contruction.

15 miles out from the city center, just a few miles out from the new outer beltline, was a quiet little bedroom community for Raleigh. It has tripled in size in the past ten years, almost all of it moderately priced housing developments and new shopping centers. People live there, work in Raleigh or Research Triangle Park, and never go to downtown WF.

Typical.

these places cannot exist without cheap fuel. $2.50/gallon will get them thinking, $3/gallon will have them breaking out the pitchforks & torches.

they'll say things like "i sacrificed my son's blood/mental health/life for oil, why isn't it cheaper, mr. bush?"

instead of letting the GOP describe them and responding with "I know you are, but what am I?"

A lot of the demographic groups that are hot for the GOP right now were solidly in the left column when I was a child. But when I was a child, we knew what the Democratic party stood for - it was populism on a grand scale. The Democrats cared about regular people and our community.

It's time for the Democrats to reclaim their populist brand. Not just by championing legislation that is good for the people - let's face it, the people don't know what's good for them half the time. If they did, this election wouldn't have been close enough to steal.

If you want those folks in the middle to swing back to the left, it can be done, but you have to start NOW to rebuild that "party of the people" image. Local Democratic groups need to start getting involved in community service in a big way year round. Everything from barn-building to Christmas in July projects to gathering toys for kids in local hospitals to cleaning up the highway - Every community project that goes on should have people wearing T-shirts saying "Democratic Party of __________."

If my post below is correct, we'd think not.

Whenever there is a dramatic shift in economic patterns people become disoriented. Globalization combined with the internet-enabled dispersal of businesses already left the timorous surburban class feeling shaken BEFORE 9-11. Add to that the media's failure to pursue the truth (when they're not propagating outright lies) makes nuanced analytical positions feel destabilizing. We need to play Rove's game and attack the enemies so-called strength. Not one day should go by that a Democrat does not mention moral values and Tom Delay in the same sentence. No mention of our troops should be made without hammering home the appalling way they're being treated. And no discussion of moral values should be engaged without us pointing out that corporate criminality and torture are not condoned in the Democratic Party. Stick to four or five simple moral points and keep repeating them over and over and over- change the subject if you must. I know its not our style but its not hard work...

A lot of these people probably like the Republicans' anti-big government message, along with the GOP's focus on tax cuts. Many move outwards to escape large tax rates, and overregulation makes it difficult to build a new home. Many of this demographic, if they are young and moving out from a major city, have liberal attitudes on social issues but feel liberals want to run their lives when it comes to economic issues.

I live in an exurb-y kind of location. I can tell you why they're moving here. They can't even afford a 2 bedroom condo on a loud street in Chicago, but here they can afford to buy a two story home with some land around it, a nice yard for the kids to play in, maybe have a dog and a garden. They're largely blue collar workers or people struggling on the way up. They voted for Bush this time not because they like his economic policies, but because they were scared and because they were never able to really get a handle on Kerry. Hell, they're two paychecks away from being uninsured 4 away from being homeless and they know it. The Democratic platform is what they want, but they don't know what it is. All they heard was War War War Swift Boats War Terror Terror Be Afraid Be Afraid Osama Osama Swift Boats.

Nobody mentioned Osama. Nobody.

on all the television stations just before the election.

My father was an electrician when we moved out here in the late 1980s.

Kerry's non-response to the Swift Smear Vets is something that hurt the campaign in general, not something that hurt him specifically in exburbia and nowhere else.

Taxes and big government motivate a lot of exburbia voters, especially since exburbia is growing so quickly. Take an issue like education. Heavy tax increases for schools are on the ballot all of the time, and the bureaucrats often do not manage the dollars effectively. People move out to get away from this kinda stuff in the first place, and many get the impression Democrats just want to keep piling it on.

It isn't clear to me that going economically populist can get us these voters, since most of them already have the job, health care and retirement under control. We don't need to bash religion like another poster suggested since people moving out here are initially urban and younger, and tend to be socially liberal. I don't think voters in exburbia are gung-ho about the Republican economic agenda; it is more of a fear that Democrats do not make economic policy with their interests in mind.

A message that would resonate here would be an anti-special interests approach that fights for a leaner, more effective government. Things like protectionism and new government programs won't persuade many in exburbia.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

The short answer is Bush improved his totals in the "exurbs" by about the same amount he improved his totals everywhere else. So forget about trying to launch any special program to appeal to "exurbs" specifically.

We need a national focus.

See this: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000961.php

And no matter which of these "top 100" county categories you look at, the overwhelming amount of Bush's gains still occur outside those county categories. Boringly enough, it looks like Bush's narrow victory was mostly attributable to modest, but broad-based, gains across the country, not to any particular flavor of county, as enticing as that storyline obviously is to journalists.

How broad-based? If you look at percentage point margins, Bush improved his margin by 4 points in the 100 fastest-growing counties--and by 3 points outside those counties. And he improved his margin by 3 points in the 100 largest-growth counties and by 2 points in the 100 counties with the largest populations.

It's fun to talk about exurbs and fast growth, but "huge victory" and "altering the political map"--puh-leeze. In the end it was "two to four points and a cloud of dust". That was the real 2004 election.

They tend to be made up of tract houses and chain stores.

For this reason, the fundie mega churches hold a great deal of appeal, full of friendly folk who will take care of all your non-work nneds as long as you go along with their beliefs. It's the old Moonie "love bomb" trick in suburban form.

The way the Dems should counter this is to create their own secular communities where everyone is welcome. Start with a picnic to which everyone is invited. Have movie nights with entertaining but progressive movies. Discuss books. Set up childcare cooperatives and chore exchanges for busy families.

Let them know that Dems aren't monsters.

I'm really not sure how we can win these votes. There are always pockets of libs/dems in this area, but the republicans ban together in churches. I know several of them, because our kids play on sports teams together. I have the hardest time even having a conversation w/ them. They do no political research that I can tell and they basically vote the way thier MONSTER SIZE churches tell them to. I still think Rove is misleading the public w/ this information. It's all about the churches. I attended one of thier churches for about a month when my son was invited by one of these parents. There was no direct mention of voting for Bush, but what the minister said was clear. "The elections this year are very important." he then went on to speak loud and clear about the abomination of homosexuality, abortion, wicca, witchcraft, ouji boards, tarot cards....The list goes on and on. Needless to say after the first two sermons like this I got the hell out of dodge and haven't been back since. I wrote the guy a letter explaining why I would never step foot in his church again, he responded in a written letter basically denouncing me for telling him he was brainwashing his parishoners.

These counties get the highest growth rates because they have the smallest # of people.

To go from 0 people to 1 person is an infinitely large growth rate, but the actual size of the increase is very small. That's what's happened with the numbers on these counties.

If Ron Brownstein knew any math, he wouldn't have written this story.