The "new" suburbs

[AmericanLiberal]

We are losing ground demographically among fast-growing areas. Namely outer suburbs. They are growing around the country, from Minnesota to Dick Gephardt's district near St. Louis, to Arizona to Atlanta to my own state of Maryland. These areas tend to vote staunchly Republican. I have two of questions, centering around the "why is this?" theme.

What issues are important to these voters?

Who are moving into these areas, and where are they moving from?

Here is my hypothesis. These people are likely to be higher income, married professionals. They do not need programs such as social security or medicare as much as the average American does. They moved to their homes during the 1990's boom or the recent housing bubble and are less likely to be tied to a union or the public sector. Locally, they pay taxes but don't see the money because it goes into the cities for urban projects.

This represents a long term problem for our party: we can win if we can bring in this new group of voters into our tent, but if we cannot we are in long term decline. The poverty rate is rising, but the upper middle class is growing faster, probably at the cost of the lower middle class. I believe we can reach out to these voters by emphasizing "smart growth" residential policies, corporate regulation over the size of government, and upper class taxation over middle class taxation. Ideas?

[sasquatch]

1. These "new" suburbs are a byproduct of racism

We don't need these WASP, fascist, Nazi sympathizing goofy bastards. Everytime since LBJ was pres the democrats win by getting minority's and women voters. We don't need these people we need the union members, minority's, women and low income voters to win ther white house. You're talking about a DLC tactic that's never worked and hurts us in the long run because we alienate our core voters. That's why we're out of power because we try to get those selfish jerkoffs to like us more.

[Lindacooks]

2. How about

the environment, money for research into diseases, civil rights, reproductive rights?

[AmericanLiberal]

4. Agree, mostly

The latest Pew research poll shows a vast majority of Americans want to protect the environment and a substantial majority are even willing to pay higher prices in order to do so. We should emphasize this issue more than we have.

Research grants are a good idea as well. They'll cost money but we should tax the uber-rich not the upper middle class. Dean and Gephardt want to repeal even the parts of the Bush tax cuts that apply to the middle class and that's going to be a loser in '04 even if we need to do it to balance the budget in the long run.

Civil rights once again, I agree! This issue is NOT finished and it is NOT just about Affirmative action, but rather the broad and persistent racial and gender problems and inequalities that continue to affect all over the country.

Reproductive rights is good but I think the privacy argument is not a winner; the fact that a fetus has never been conscious and therefore no moral harm can be done to it is more complicated but a winner.

[La_Serpiente]

5. Word of advice

stop looking at polls. They are not the Bible. They are useful to look at, but not that important. We should be guiding the debate, not interpreting it.

[La_Serpiente]

3. Welcome to DU

Sounds like a DLC interpretation of things. I won't blame ya.

I don't expect Senators to be puritanical in their beliefs. However, they do have to have some core party values.

Also, your repeating the same ideas that party leaders like Al From at the DLC have been saying. They have been running the show for the last ten years, and they have achieved nothing in my view.

You are right about Minnesota though. I have a feeling that the right is resurging over there.

Arizona? Nah. Democrats are GROWING there.

[AmericanLiberal]

6. Thanks La_Serpiente

While the DLC has indeed had terrible failures, I don't necessarily think it's because of their positions on issues. They may not have been creative enough on some issues for sure, but the Republicans have a much better organizing base and sophistication at winning elections that the DNC has not built up.

[La_Serpiente]

7. Oh, there is no doubt that the Republicans are organized

They have the money and resouces to maintain a strong network.

Sophistication? yeah...I guess so.

[xray s]

8. The suburbs around Chicago have been very competitive for Dems

And that has been the trend for about 10 years.


As far as some of your assertions;

"they don't need Medicare...' If they have elderly parents they sure as hell do or "bye bye" tax free inheritence. Oh, and now that their crappy HMO coverage is $12,000 per year per family, a growing number of them are starting to think a Canadian style health insurance system is looking pretty good.

"they don't see their money because it goes to cities for urban projects..." Actually one of the biggest chunks of taxpayer dough goes to pay interest on the debt the Republican's have run up since 1980. Last year the tab was $318 billion.

"...the upper middle class is growing..." Really? Well, they were up until the selection of 2000, the Enron debacle, terror attacks and our reckless response to those attacks, 2.7 million lost jobs and so on.

Here is my idea to appeal to these voters...

"You voted for Bush. His cowboy diplomacy has resulted in an over-stretched military commitment that will destroy the volunteer armed forces. Now your kid will probably be drafted to fight in the middle east to fulfil Bush's dreams of American empire as outlined in the Project for a New American Century. All the while his big contributors at companies like Halliburton are rolling in the bucks off defense contracts, and Osama runs free as the breeze. What? No one told you about that? So, WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT?"

[AmericanLiberal]

9. The jobs you speak of...

Were mostly lost in manufacturing. Looking at white collar jobs, even with the well-hyped flight to India, it is clear that most of the wage growth is coming from these areas. And disposable income is indeed increasing.

Their elderly parents can vote Democrat and they will vote Republican, I doubt national healthcare will be accepted; Clinton tried it in 1993 and couldn't get it even though he had big majorities.

The national debt is a smaller part of the budget than defense, social security, and probably smaller than medicare; but those in the cities see and want more (local) government investment than those in the outer suburbs.

Well your argument sounds convincing to me but can Dean make it stick in a place like Missouri?

[sasquatch]

11. We've lost a lot of White Collar jobs pal

Do you know how many of our 'White Collar' jobs were sent to India, Russia and god knows how many other third world hell holes? Millions, hell my uncle is a victim of it. Most of those houses don't even have furniture in them because people buy them as a status statement. The upper middle class is all but destroyed now in the BCF economy. Come on man don't fall for that pink tutu, DINO, DLC propaganda bullshit that fake dems like LIEberman, Gephart the Nazistischer hehn parasit and Edwards shove down our throats.

BTW Welcome DU newbie:hi:

[AmericanLiberal]

13. I see this site is quite staunch.

Well in a way that is encouraging, this thread was just inspired by looking through the Almanac of American politics 2004 where I noticed the Republican trend in many states is driven by outer suburban growth; and also I heard somewhere that the Bush counties in 2000 grew much faster over the 1990's than the Gore counties.

For example, in my own state of Maryland, Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, daughter of the late RFK, lost the Governor's bid to Bob Ehrlich because she polled poorly in the newer suburbs and the suburbs outside Baltimore, which are the fastest growing. There is a chance these suburbs could go more Democratic in the future, but I don't think it's smart just to sit by and expect it to happen magically.

Yeah and I don't really like Lieberman. And this looks like a great site. :7

[xray s]

16. Welcome

Sorry if I seem a little cranky but I am passionate about these issues.

That's what the Democratic party needs to win. Passion. It gets out the vote. It brings out the volunteers. It makes people work their ass off to change things.

[AmericanLiberal]

17. oh I agree

Don't worry I'm pretty passionate too. If I wasn't I wouldn't have brought up this issue. :pals:

[AP]

20. KKT got into some problems, I think, with the sniper.

I think people got a little freaked by the sniper, and their reaction wasn't, "oh, better vote for the person who's better on gun control."

I think their reaction was, "I'm not going to be as safe with a woman governor." I believe I read that women candidates fared very poorly in 2002, probably because of 9/11 and because of a very subtle anti-feministe backlash the Republicans and the media encourage (Joe Millionaire).

Furthermore, KKT's choice of running mate seemed pretty sensible at first. But I think later people thought, "what's she trying to tell us? Does she think that it's important to be a stern man? Then I better vote for the stern man who tops the other ticket, rather than the woman with a stern man as a back-up.

[xray s]

14. This isn't 1993

This is 2003, ten years after the Republicans defeated the Clinton health insurance plan (hell, the Clinton's never really fought for it, Harry and Louise sucker punched them out of the ring). The Republicans said "trust the market". Well the market has FAILED. Private health insurance is a disaster. It is a needless bureacratic layer. It is too expensive, too inefficient and a waste of resources, money that should be spent on health delivery, not red tape and advertising and CEO salaries.

Dennis Kucinich (no he's not my candidate) has it right. We are paying enough to give all Americans universal health insurance but we are not getting it.

You want to win? Just tap into the frustration people have with their HMO's.

[AmericanLiberal]

15. where is the money going to come from?

How will you pay for national healthcare?

[xray s]

18. The money is being spent right now

It costs $12,000 a year to cover a family under private programs today. Companies are paying that (or they are just dropping coverage all together). Think about it. If you are making $48,000 per year, that health insurance coverage is like a 25% tax on your wages (partially being paid by you, and partially by your employer).

You see, when you realize the cost of private health insurance is just like any othe tax, you soon see where the money will come from. Eliminate the burden on employers of providing private health insurance and fund it through a combination of payroll taxes and sin taxes instead. The administration savings would be enourmous.

Check this out

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0813/p03s01-ussc.html?usaNav

"Currently, about 26 cents on every US health care dollar is spent on paperwork and administration. Replacing private health insurance companies with a single, government insurer like Medicare, which spends about 3 percent on administration, would save the country $200 billion dollars annually.

"The single payer system is the only one that's economically feasibly," says Dr. Richard Brown, a member of Physicians for a National Health Program, which wrote the proposal featured in JAMA. "And of course it's open, it doesn't exclude people because they're a bad health risk."

Doctors are fed up with the private insurance system. I could tell you horror stories of billing screw ups but we all know about them first hand.

Time to take a bold stand.

[xray s]

19. Those upper middle class portfolios have taken a big hit under Bush

No way they have recovered. Upper middle class income may be up, but only very moderately, and barely keeping up with inflation. I know what corporations are giving out in raises to white collar jobs.

But net worth is down from 2000. Big time.

[AP]

10. I read that people are moving back to big cities,

that small cities are becoming bigger cities, and that suburbs are becoming more diverse racially.

All three of these trends favor Democrats.

And, according to the Emerging Dem Majority, the suburbs are, in fact, becoming more Democratic.

[xray s]

12. At least that is the way it has been trending around Chicago

I see it the same way AP

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

21. Tax implications

Those in the 'burbs are receiving the benifits of very low interest rates (re-fi their homes), 3% lower taxes (assuming in the 25% range for income under $300,000), child tax credits. It will be hard to sell a tax increase to them.

[xray s]

22. Even when we are at war?

Are we so selfish that people won't even consider being fiscally responsible and raising taxes to pay for the things our service people need to defend themselves and give them adequate pay and medical care and other services they desperately need?

The Republicans have been preaching greed for so long...you may be right. It's more important to some to get that tax break to pay for a new Hummer to put in the garage.

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

23. It was tried once before...

GHWB raised taxes after Gulf War I, disenfranchised his voter base and got himself booted after 1 term. I doubt his son will commit the same political suicide (on that issue!) And without a balanced budget requirement, excessive expendatures (did you know that federal spending has increased more under GWB than anyone in the last 30 years?) usually mean debt. Which when you get back to your original point, alot of people don't care about federal debt...its the government's debt, not that person's. Debt also typically has a way of looking not-so-bad at the beginning, then biting you in the tush down the line when you want economic freedom (just ask anyone with a big credit card bill!)

[xray s]

24. You got that right.

The irony is foreign capital is financing our debt. That is our future and economic freedom they have in their hands.

And W is just so intent on pissing them off.

[Navy Deep Sea LT]

25. Thank goodness

for term limits and elctions...one president can always blame mistakes on "that guy before me". "That was the PREVIOUS administration's policy" I love the blame game.

[alexwcovington]

26. THEY ARE RICH

It's as simple as that. Suburbanites are rich, in some cases filthy rich, and that's what's going on.

[ursacorwin]

27. a combination of things

racism is a pretty powerful force. i think there is a core of these people who'll stay no matter what the burbs become in the next 20 years...

detroit has some 'old' suburbs, i've not been there in a while. but i grew up there, and i remember how the lack of community, any true sense of uniqueness, really ate at the core of a couple of them. after the first generation of children had grown, the owners moved out and rental use went up. and many of the kids moved towards the city, not away from it.

i think the environmental and civil problems of the burbs will bite them on the ass, and soon. no tax structure means nothing with which to fix problems like depleted water tables, schools that need additional quality teachers, or infustructrual repairs. a decaying mcmasion hood isn't something that's a growth market in terms of real estate.

i live in the city (not detroit) and i'm glad i do. it's either that or real country, both where local community can exist and thrive. the burbs are lifeless hulks to me, but perhaps that will change.

[spooky3]

28. three points of possible disagreement

with some of the posts on this thread, as someone who has lived in several different "burbs" around the country.

1. The "burbs" voters are very concerned about schools because most of them have kids (that's why they moved out there). Real estate taxes matter to them. But this is a local or state issue, not one for a presidential campaign.

2. Don't forget that in most households with 2 professionals, one of them is a woman. Women professionals know that the Repugs are not their friends in the workplace as Repugs want to send them all back to the kitchen. They usually vote Democratic.

3. There is a diversity of households in the "burbs" as elsewhere. Some have hubby in a high paying job with wifey at home or working part time while the kids are young. Others have two moderate earners. In some the wife earns more. Some are empty nesters with a lot of investment income. In my current burb there are many singles. While many of these households may be "rich" relative to most of the people in the world and relative to all too many in this country, I would bet that most do NOT see themselves as "rich" at all. They are working long hours and struggling to meet the demands of their middle-class lifestyle--high mortgage payments, kids' requirements, helping elderly parents, etc. If one of them is laid off or fired (the ONLY one in single person households), the lifestyle changes dramatically.

I think it would be helpful not to dichotomize the country into "rich" and "poor" or "working class" vs. "idle rich" and recognize that there is a large number of people who do not fall in either of these traditional categories. I think Dean has it right in wanting to move the discussion from "abortion, gays, etc." and towards economic matters, the war, etc.--even for many of these voters.

[DeepModem Mom]

29. Welcome to DU, AmericanLiberal....

I'm relatively new to DU myself, and I applaud your post. I started a similar thread yesterday asking how the Democratic Party could reach a new generation of Gen Y and Gen X voters. I think we need a whole new language and, as you do, emphasis on new and different issues. Another poster went further and said that we need a very broad and simple theme that will appeal to a majority of Americans, adding that coming up with these things is not easy, especially, I think, in a party of individualists like ourselves.