That's a complicated question, but this op-ed in the Los Angeles Times offers and analysis that should be applied to the metropolitan Puget Sound area, particularly to the suburbs close to Seattle that have shifted in the last couple decades from reliably Republican to favorable ground for Democrats:
...gentry liberalism reflects the interests and values of the affluent winners in the era of globalization and the beneficiaries of the "financialization" of the economy. Its strongholds are the tony neighborhoods and luxurious suburbs in and around New York, Washington, Boston, San Francisco and West Los Angeles.
Growing up in Edmonds I remember cutting my first teeth in politics on campaigns that came in the late 1980's, when the area regularly sent moderate Republicans to the state Legislature. Now, filled with affluent, white collar workers, Edmonds is decidedly safe Democratic territory.
Concurrently, note the author of the op-ed singles out "gentry liberalism" - and Republicans writ large for that matter - for failing to address the concerns of middle class and working class voters. That's a potentially yawning gap for Republican legislative candidates to exploit if Democratic incumbents allow it.
It would also be fair to say one reason Dino Rossi outperformed the rest of the Republican ticket in 2004 was his ability to bridge that gap, appealing to a broad spectrum of less-than-affluent voters on the issue of jobs and the economy. Thus, it should be no surprise, for example, that Gregoire won affluent Edmonds while Rossi won the more working class Lynnwood, which is otherwise a Democratic stronghold.
That's not a bad lesson for Republicans trying to make sure their candidates are running on agendas that are relevant to the communities they seek to represent, especially when a new class of Democrats isn't consistently paying proper attention to the middle class.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 03, 2007 07:34 PM | Email ThisThe Republicans have fled the area around the big cities altogether, moving to Eastern Washington, other states or - like me - moving overseas.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on December 3, 2007 08:25 PM
And lately, is there really much difference between Republicans and Democrats? The bureaucracy grows by leaps and bounds every year. Dozens more departments of union workers on the dole, with the "use it or lose it" budget mentality.
What's needed are real people to run for office. Principled, and with the balls to get in, do some budget and spending slashing, and get out. It's a tall order. Because most real people view government with so much disgust, that they wouldn't go anywhere near public office. And rightfully so.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 3, 2007 09:15 PMIf I were the King County Republican Party (which I'm not), I'd be concerned about a few things:
I-960 failed many parts of Bellevue and Redmond. It passed the district by well under its state average. It passed the 5th LD (Sammamish Plateau to Maple Valley and out east) by barely more than the state average. Anti-tax sentiment and economic conservatism in the area is not as strong as it used to be. It's certainly not enough to carry even legislative candidates, it seems.
On the statewide level, Republicans can't rely on suburban margins for conservative candidates anymore. They margins just aren't what they need to be. Rossi was perhaps the perfect non-centrist GOP candidate in the suburbs. That Rossi effectively tied Gregoire says a lot - and not much especially good for the conservative wing of the GOP.
I agree with a lot of past assessments that say it will be all about transportation and local issues. Conservative social values may play well in the suburbs to some extent (suburban voters still don't like crime, drugs, edginess, etc.) but the new face of social conservatism in this country (i.e., neoconservatism) does not play on the Eastside.
At least that's my two cents.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 3, 2007 09:25 PMI disagree that this has much to do with "progressivism." Countrywide, save for a few select areas, the pattern is the same. In established, "old" cities, inner-ring suburbs are trending Democratic at significant rates. Outer-ring suburbs and exurbs may be different, and growth areas heavily favor Republicans. On net, I suppose less "progressive" cities have suburbs that are seeing more growth, and consequentially their suburbs are not trending Republican.
But I don't really think this has anything to do with the central city's politics, as much as the region in which the city is located and the suburbs' demographics. Take Atlanta, for example - I assume that's a city you'd call a "wasteland of Progressivism."
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 3, 2007 09:31 PM" And lately, is there really much difference between Republicans and Democrats? "
Actually there is as long as you are talking about Republicans and Democrats and not the leadership of the Republican and Democrat Parties nor the candidates the leadership recruits. The leadership of the King County Republican Party and their choice of candidates for public office down to positions in the KCGOP being a case in point.
As is there support of Democrat candidates.
Brian Thomas
Posted by: Brian Thomas on December 3, 2007 10:22 PMYomama Bin Klinton will win, and things will get much worse before this country wakes up, if it ever does.
Posted by: Independent Voter on December 4, 2007 07:29 AMAlthough it is obvious you are speaking tongue-and-cheek, it is refreshing to hear someone state what he/she actually stands for rather than what the polls indicate you need to be/say to get elected.
Once upon a time, in pre-Clinton America, people expected candidates to actually hold established values, as well as to state their positions on issues. "I voted for it before I voted against it" would not pass muster. If you spoke to a particular stance, you would (if elected) govern accordingly. It was called PERSONAL INTEGRITY.
Nowadays, the Queen can campaign against increased taxation and sign into law the largest tax increases in state history one month after her coronation. And Hillary can flat-out contradict herself on drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. Yet each were given a pass by the MSM and a large segment of the population.
That is why I admire and support Dino Rossi. I believe the man has personal integrity and would govern as he campaigns. Sadly, there are few politicans I would say that about.
Posted by: Saltherring on December 4, 2007 08:18 AMIf you're alleging massive conspiracy by the King County Elections department, enough to entirely change the results of the suburban districts, you must own way more aluminum foil than I do.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2007 08:35 AMMaybe, maybe not. But it makes you wonder when all of these ballots come out of NO-where.
You really want to bring up the last Gov's election with all the hanky panky that was going on!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 4, 2007 09:06 AMAt least this post you got the initials correct.
I don't support Lyndon, but I can support the thought that you are an idiot.
There was certainly a degree of "hanky-panky" going on in the last gubernatorial election. But I don't see any indication that the major wrongs of 2004 were repeated in this election. Even in 2004, the ballots came down to a rather insubstantial percentage of the overall King County vote. It just happened that it mattered.
There would have to be massive, machine fraud to flip the suburban vote like that. And what "ballots out of nowhere"? Yes, King County's original ballot estimate was lower than its final count by a moderate degree. Most every county's was - it's hardly rare, and has happened in virtually every election I've ever tracked.
I see no indication of massive fraud in anything - the way the results came in, the way the turnout levels fell countywide, the results relative to other counties.
I'm not disputing the validity of your skepticism of the past performace of KCE. I'm just warning against the dangers of crying wolf.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2007 09:22 AMMachine fraud.... what machines. Most are in-mail ballots that most of us did not want because there in NO way to verify.
Look how fast they kicked Stephen out when he saw problems just a year ago on voting!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 4, 2007 10:02 AMThe truly wealthy vote Democratic. Middle class suburbs are far more Republican than the wealthier ones.
Posted by: Ken Hahn on December 4, 2007 10:23 AMMachine fraud, as in, fraud controlled by a political machine, not by the HAL sort of machines. But we're getting off-track. My original point still stands: King County Elections certainly returned flawed results in 2004, but unless there problems were amplified significantly in 2007 (which I see no indication of), the "the suburbs haven't changed; King County is just messing with the results" argument doesn't hold water. This is especially true when you look at the results in suburban areas of Snohomish and Kitsap counties, and suburbs like Seattle's in other states.
If the two GOP options for poor suburban performance are A) do something, B) claim it's King County messing with the results, I think that option A should be heavily preferred over option B. I doubt you disagree; I'm just expounding on my original point.
Posted by: Benjamin Johnstone-Anderson on December 4, 2007 11:40 AMI predict an R landslide this next November and significant increase in R pickups in the state legislature. But the riskier prediction is there will be an R leadership to take the bull by the horns.
Posted by: swatter on December 4, 2007 12:59 PMWanted to have sex with a child (Gary Studs) here we go again!
Seattle Times today!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 4, 2007 01:10 PMThe Republicans have lost there way...you can count the true conservatives in politics on one hand...Republicans in congress spend like sailor on a tear after being at sea for months...how many more “GAY” situations must we endure...we are forced to compromise with every candidate due to “viability”...and they could beat "Billary."
Just as the JFK Democrats left me in the 60’s... the Republicans have left me with the Bush Administration and present Congress...it’s sad to say this but I have to look in the mirror each morning...and one must stay true to ones convictions or you have nothing!!!
This politics feeling has to do with Giuliani mainly or Romney not so much making the blue northeastern states in play, as well as California, Washington and Oregon. Their message plays well.
That being said, the R coattails of Giuliani or Romney, as well as a strong gubernatorial candidate of the Clinton clone- Gregoire, will open the doors for the rest of the Rs.
While Giuliani and Romney are no Reagans, I believe they have enough appeal to swing the Reagan Democrats over to their side, especially with the weak Democrat headliners.
But, my whole prediction is predicated upon the Rs stepping up to the plate. The field is there for the taking when you consider the non-governance of the current pack of D electeds.
Just saying.
Posted by: swatter on December 4, 2007 02:14 PMHere's my 2cents: talk about Socialism. By name. Make sure Christians know you reject atheistic socialism. Sure, socialism is a financial system, but more than that it is a philosophy: the State is God.
The one thing the 'religious right' has fought besides abortion is Communism. Christians around the world were persecuted, jailed and killed under socialism. We spent seventy years risking our lives smuggling Bibles into communist countries, supporting illegal churches, and praying for the fall of communism. We usually feel we won that one. At least temporarily...
There are bloggers and commentators here who fight the battles... many of them against what we should call socialism in America. Rush and Beck have begun to use the "S" word. Join them.
Christians will fight socialism.
Posted by: ljm on December 4, 2007 04:10 PM
I don't agree with your third point. Don't you think they'd still want to vote for Rossi no matter what is happening in the presidential race?
Posted by: Smoley on December 4, 2007 05:42 PMThank you for that quote. I haven't laughed quite so hard in a long, long time.
If you really believe big government "creates" wealth, you should move to Russia, Mother France or any of the other "cradle to grave" governments in the world. Good luck with that.
The leadership of the Democratic Party has swung far left and the Republicans are fragmented (neo-cons, pro-life or pro-choice)- thanks to the Bush influence. Both parties are too self-absorbed and polarizing to the other - the political landscape in general - stinks.
Posted by: KS on December 4, 2007 08:44 PMLook at the Hillary defections in Iowa and NH.
Posted by: John Bailo on December 5, 2007 07:16 AM- want to tell gays what to do and not do in the bedroom
- want to demand everyone conform to christian white america 1950s values, which were never true anyway
- are not capable of balancing a federal budget
- support failed foreign policies based on fraudulent evidence.
I'm pretty fiscal conservative and voted against many levies in Seattle, hate the way we coddle criminals here, hate a lot about the liberal elite.
And yet -- Republicans will never get my vote.
You people supported a moron president and a criminal war, you people supported busting our federal budget to do it, and you people have not thrown your christian nutjob contingent out of your party.
Til you do -- no Republican will ever get my vote.
I doubt I'm alone.
Posted by: DaveD on December 5, 2007 09:51 AMDaveD, you are of the breed who has preset prejudices/stereotypes. There is nothing in this world that could convince you to change your vote.
One thing I can never understand is how a guy can be such a moron and yet be called the greatest and most evil mastermind humankind has ever created. You lose cred when you show your BDS there, Dave.
Bring your A-game and we can talk.
Posted by: swatter on December 5, 2007 02:19 PMSorry, Dave. You lost me here. That president you accuse did what he did with 80% approval from both houses of congress, many of whom were Democrats.
Just run a search and you'll find any number of quotes from both Clintons, Gore, Kerry et al. that Iraq was a threat. Whether that was true or not may never be known; quite frankly, it's irrelevant, at this point.
Whether you like the Dems or not is not important. We're in Iraq now, and if that is an important issue for you (which it appears to me it is), you may want to ask yourself if you trust any of the Dems on that issue. Carter had a certain point of view on the Middle East...look where that got us.
Posted by: Interested on December 5, 2007 02:23 PMFace it the whole party has succumbed to a bunch of small minded fools who are slowly driving this party off a cliff. Bring back states rights, small Govt., and stop trying to shove biblical morality down my throat. When the Pat Robertson wing shoves off I'll start voting GOP again. Until then I'll continue to support whatever Libertarian makes it on the ballot.