A ‘New’ Target Demographic

The esteemed Progressive thinker Joel Kotkin has another brilliant piece that is worth quoting from ad nauseum. It is entitled The Three Geographies and like most everything he writes, it is fascinating. (I have already run some of the statistics he highlights in this piece in other posts, but i will probably touch on them again here.)

Mr. Kotkin has recently been working on a study of new ways to view voting/political trends among Americans and what is the driving force behind them. Here is the intro to the piece:

We believe Americans’ political perspective – if not their final voting behavior – is largely shaped not so much by their state but, rather, by the type of place they reside in. Defining an area are factors such as how many people are homeowners, take transit and have children living at home, as well as the preponderance of middle-class households and the extent of economic and racial diversity.

We believe the most effective breakdown of how Americans live can be seen in three basic geographic forms: the urban, suburban and small town/rural. These geographies, although not uniform across the country, show significant differences in almost all major characteristics, including voting behavior. Even when voting for the same party, residents of these different geographies often do so with different motivations.

While I am slightly chagrinned to learn that his logic discredits some of my own opinions on the necessity of the Electoral College in national elections, I will agree that his arguement is sound. Kotkin goes on to explain that the population breaks down along these lines: 17% rural, 32% urban and 51% suburban. So what does this mean for our political parties? A lot. Much of the lessons we can draw from this are not new, but the overall perspective of viewing voters along these lines is a fresh way of looking at things.

For conservatives, we know that we continue to hold rural areas. Voters there identify strongly with the conservative message, right or wrong. The population in this area is fairly homogenous and poverty is higher than the national average. Liberals also maintain their strong hold on urban areas. This lock is based primarily on the heavy presence of black voters and the newer addition of a white elite class that is liberally minded. Again, without newly arrived whites contributing too many numbers, urban areas are also fairly homogenous and poverty is above the national average. Understanding these two given truths, it becomes no surprise that the suburbs are up for grabs. There we have the most diverse population along economic, racial and cultural lines. The suburbs today are actually a good reflection of the nation as a whole.

By far the largest percentage of Americans live in the third geography: the suburbs. Located between the rural edges and the urban cores, these areas are where Americans have been migrating with remarkable consistency for over the past half-century. Despite varied attempts to proclaim “back to the land” or “back to the city” movements, through oil price rises and declines, suburbs have shown no long-term sign of secular shrinking. In fact, during the past six years, roughly 90 percent of all growth in metropolitan areas has taken place the suburbs.

If suburbs, with roughly 51 percent of the population, represent the largest geography, they also, not surprisingly, are most representative of the nation as a whole. Once overwhelmingly white, they now have a racial breakdown far closer to the national norm than either cities, which are much more heavily minority, or rural/small towns, which are considerably less so.

Perhaps more importantly, suburbs tend to have higher concentration of middle-class voters than the other geographies.

One interesting aspect of the ‘three geographies’ is that while the suburbs are the largest voting block, it is the urban areas that are the best represented politically with old political machines in cities like Chicago and New York and committed community leaders with city government backing in other places. Organization of suburban voters into a more unified voice will be a challenge for political organizations but Kotkin’s research seems to indicate it may be a worthwhile effort.

Yet, in the end, we believe the election will be decided largely in the suburbs, the largest, if least self-defined, of the geographies. Throughout the primaries, Obama battled Clinton to a rough draw in the suburbs. He generally did best in the higher end, closer in suburban communities as well as to those with large minority population, much as John F. Kerry did against President Bush in 2004. Now the question is whether Obama can expand that suburban base to the often less affluent, newer and somewhat more exurban counties.

McCain, from sprawling Phoenix, needs to rally the hard-pressed homeowners and commuters of the suburbs. Recent polls suggest he now holds as much as a 10-point lead among suburban voters. To consolidate that advantage, and even to expand it, he must offer a vision that promises a future under the next Republican president that’s better than the present one. In contrast, given his lock on the cities, Obama simply needs to split the suburban geography and make a respectable showing in the rural/small towns’ constituency to reach the top of the greasy pole