Suburbs: Dispelling the Monolithic Assumptions

How shifting suburban dynamics are redefining U.S. politics in the wake of Trump

Suburbs are interesting because there are multiple narratives going on surrounding them and their trajectory, and I think that it's wrong to assume that just one of those narratives is incorrect. 

And that’s simply because: not all suburbs are the same. 

Suburbs aren't monolithic, their political dynamics vary from region to region and state to state, even at the local community level, shaped by unique combinations of demographics, cultures, and traditions.

And that's not really acknowledged much today because the dominant narrative is that prior to the Trump era, suburbs, while always being hotly contested, were always more conservative than liberal, the stronghold of white, middle-class, Christian families—a demographic traditionally aligned with Republican values. While suburbs have always been politically contested, their reputation leaned conservative.

However, the Trump era disrupted this pattern. Many suburban voters reacted strongly to Trump’s rhetoric, policy agenda, and the broader alignment of the Republican Party under his leadership. Between 2016 and 2020, and through subsequent midterms, many suburban areas shifted leftward. This drift to the left was not uniform or rooted in a single reason but reflected diverse, localized reactions to Trumpism.

This raises a pivotal question for the post-2020 political landscape: "What now?" With Trump out of office (though potentially returning), the Republican Party faces uncertainty.

Can it regain the suburban voters who shifted left during the Trump years, or has a lasting realignment taken place? These questions will shape the future of suburban politics and their influence on national elections.

Revisiting the Trump Era

During the Trump era, a significant shift occurred. The political loyalties of working-class voters across many states, including Virginia, California, and Texas—and especially in the Midwest, who had previously supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, moved away from the Democratic Party. These voters felt their actual needs and struggles were just being ignored, while the Republican Party, under Trump, seemed to offer some degree of empathy or understanding towards them.

In a lot of rural, industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania—key parts of the Midwest—alot of people flocked toward Trump’s nationalist and anti-free trade rhetoric. He presented himself as a populist, appealing to voters who felt disillusioned with traditional political elites— even if he would go on to show he wasn’t really that when he assumed office. But he struck a strong chord within these communities.

This helped Trump secure overwhelming support in rural areas, enabling his victories in crucial Rust Belt states. These wins were unprecedented and simple hadn’t existed for Republicans since the era of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and highlighted the growing divide between rural working-class areas and the Democratic coalition. This rural shift would go on to play a critical role in shaping the political map during Trump’s presidency.

Looking Back: Roots of the Suburban Shift

The suburban shift toward Democrats, often attributed to the Trump era, actually began earlier and evolved over time. While 2016 marked a real acceleration of this trend, its roots can be traced back to the 2008 election and is linked to broader political and demographic changes of the preceding decades.

Early Shifts: The Obama Years

Barack Obama’s victories in states like Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada in 2008 and 2012 — all states that, mind you, he was the first Democrat to win in 10 years or even longer — marked the beginning of this transformation. These were states that Democrats had not won in decades— in Virginia, for instance, he was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the state since 1964..

Yes, Obama performed well among urban and minority voters. But really, the key to Obama’s victories in these states were the suburban voters, who had already slowly but surely been shifting leftward, driven partly by George W. Bush's unpopularity and partly by changing demographics in many suburbs.

Suburbs that were once overwhelmingly white were becoming more racially diverse. By 2008, some suburbs were no longer 75% white but closer to 60%, with growing populations of Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents. These demographic changes created a fertile environment for Democrats and have continued to do so in the years since.

The Clinton Years: Building on Obama's Gains

In 2016, Hillary Clinton expanded on Obama’s gains in specific suburban areas, especially highly educated ones. Suburbs in Northern Virginia and around Washington, D.C., became strongholds for her campaign. In fact, Virginia was one of the few states where Clinton outperformed Obama, driven by voters in affluent, well-educated suburbs who were alienated by Trump’s rhetoric and persona.

However, Clinton wasn't the first Democrat to do very well in the suburbs; and her success in these areas did not represent the beginning of the suburban shift. Instead, it reflected a continuation of trends that began during the Obama years. The misconception that the suburban shift started with Clinton stems from the fact that her gains were limited to these educated suburban pockets, while she underperformed Obama nearly everywhere else.

Post-Trump Era Context: 2018-2020

Uniform Leftward Shift

The leftward trend in the suburbs continued into the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election. In the midterms, Democrats won gubernatorial elections in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Kansas, because of these massive improvements among suburban voters who had voted for Mitt Romney in 2008 or John McCain in 2008 - some even having supported Donald Trump in 2016, and flipped on him only two years into his term.

This trend contributed to Democrats gaining 41 seats in the U.S. House during the 2018 midterms. A ton of these flipped seats were in suburban districts near major urban centers, such as the suburbs of New York City, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C.  Suburban voters who had previously supported candidates like Mitt Romney in 2012 or even Donald Trump in 2016 shifted their support to Democrats, And they really succeeded in these races where they hadn't before because so many of these high-propensity suburban voters cast their support to Democrats for the first time.

Biden and the Suburban Factor

This trend continued into 2020 where Joe Biden’s victory was heavily driven by immense suburban support. While Biden lost further ground in working-class areas and rural communities compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016—and even slipped slightly in heavily urban areas with Black and Latino voters—his saving grace was his exceptional performance in suburban districts that more than compensated for these losses.

Biden easily outperformed Barack Obama’s margins from 2008 and 2012, as well as Hillary Clinton’s from 2016 — marking the best suburban performance for a Democrat in decades. Clinton’s 2016 suburban gains were considered groundbreaking at the time, but Biden’s ability to expand on them proved pivotal in flipping key battleground states. As a result, Biden is credited with bringing back the Rust Belt, which he won through a markedly different coalition than Obama in 2008 and 2012. While Obama had relied on strong working-class and urban support, Biden offset deficits in these areas with record-breaking suburban turnout and margins.

Key Counties and Turnout

Biden’s suburban strength was evident in counties like Oakland County in Michigan, Montgomery and Chester Counties in Pennsylvania, and Allegheny County (which includes Pittsburgh). All of these counties shifted 15 to 20 points leftward, with hundreds of thousands of suburban voters turning out in unprecedented numbers to support Biden, playing a crucial role in securing Democratic victories in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In the Sun Belt, Biden’s suburban appeal was equally strong. Arizona and Georgia, which had eluded Obama in 2008 and 2012, flipped blue for Biden. Suburban voters in areas surrounding Phoenix and Atlanta, traditionally Republican areas, were key to these wins.

All these trends were already in play in 2016, but really, the key to Joe Biden's victory in 2020 was really stepping up those margins even further and gaining even more turnout in order to win.

Obama-Biden: Laying the Groundwork for Suburban Shifts

It would be a mistake to think that the suburban shift in places like Arizona and Georgia only started with Joe Biden. Even though Obama didn’t come particularly close to winning either of those states in 2008 or 2012, his performances there were still some of the best for Democrats in decades. He outperformed both Al Gore and John Kerry by nearly 10 points in these states, which set the stage for the eventual Democratic gains under Biden.

Obama lost Georgia by five points and Arizona by around eight, even against John McCain, who was a sitting senator from Arizona at the time. Obama’s strong showing came primarily from urban support among Black voters and narrower rural losses compared to recent Democratic campaigns. That’s not to say Obama didn’t make gains in the suburbs—he absolutely did. It's just like looking back at it now, those gains feel like nothing compared to the seismic shifts that occurred under Biden in 2020.

Ultimately, Obama’s campaigns helped Democrats begin to build a foundation in Sunbelt suburbs, fueled by demographic changes and backlash to Republican leadership during the Bush era. While his suburban gains didn’t flip the states, they were a crucial step in the long-term realignment that Biden would later capitalize on. The political terrain shifted dramatically between 2012 and 2020, but Obama’s groundwork was essential in making those shifts possible.

Post-2020: A Decline in Suburban Dominance?

If 2020 represented a high point for Democrats in the suburbs, the years that followed show a more complicated picture. Without Donald Trump in the White House, Democrats lost access to what might have been a convenient scapegoat that had defined much of their messaging and appeal to suburban voters. The absence of Trump as a central figure in 2021 and beyond forced a shift in the dynamics of suburban politics, with mixed results for Democrats.

The 2021 off-year elections in Virginia and New Jersey confirmed the spirit of a lot of these challenges. Both states, characterized by their dense, highly educated suburban populations, had been strongly for Joe Biden just a year earlier. Yet, the Democratic performance in these states the floor showed the floor really giving in.

In Virginia, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Terry McAuliffe, lost by two points in a state that Biden had carried by 10—a 12-point swing in just a year. And surprisingly, McAuliffe’s largest losses came in the very Northern Virginia suburbs Biden had been so successful in.

Many analysts were quick to suggest that Democratic success in the suburbs during the Trump years had been temporary—“leased votes” tied to Trump’s presence on the ballot.

A More Nuanced Picture: Suburban vs. Rural Declines

However, blaming the suburban shift entirely for McAuliffe’s loss oversimplifies the story. While Democrats did see erosion in suburban support, McAuliffe’s performance in rural areas were pretty horrendous, particularly in the western Appalachian portion of Virginia. This region has seen continuous Democratic decline since the late 20th century, and McAuliffe’s results marked a new low.

Joe Biden’s 2020 performance among rural voters in Appalachia was already among the worst for a Democratic candidate in modern history—underperforming even Hillary Clinton. But somehow McAuliffe managed to one up Biden, losing many rural counties by margins of 70 to 80 percentage points. Had he managed to narrow these losses even slightly, he might have eked out a narrow victory despite the suburban shifts.

Post-2021: Shifting Narratives on Suburban Politics

After 2021, a dominant narrative emerged suggesting that Democrats had only gained suburban support during the Trump years as a reaction to Trump himself. The assumption was that with Trump no longer a dominant figure in the political sphere, suburban voters would revert to their traditional behavior, favoring Republicans. However, this interpretation oversimplifies the dynamics at play and is only partially true.

Suburban Shifts in Context

Since 2021, the rightward shift in the suburbs has not occurred in isolation. Instead, it has paralleled broader trends, including urban and rural areas also moving to the right.

Much of this realignment went in tandem with broader dissatisfaction with the Biden administration during its early years, particularly in the wake of high-profile challenges like the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan. By the time of the 2021 elections, Biden’s approval ratings had been underwater for months by then, and this broader discontent played a significant role in Democratic losses—not just a suburban backlash.

2022 Midterms: Debunking the “Leased Voters” Narrative

The 2022 midterms challenged the notion that Democrats’ suburban gains were merely "leased votes" tied to Donald Trump’s presence on the ballot. Despite Trump being absent as a direct candidate, Democrats managed to win in many areas that had rejected them in the 2021 off-year elections. In some cases, they even expanded their support in the suburbs, demonstrating that the dynamics of suburban voters are more complex than previously assumed.

Trump’s Lingering Influence

Although Trump himself wasn’t on the ballot in 2022, his influence on the Republican Party was unmistakable. He did have a big presence in the election cycle by endorsing a lot of candidates and playing kingmaker in a lot of primaries. By 2022, Congress and Republican general election tickets were populated with candidates heavily aligned with Trump’s brand of politics—candidates who leaned authoritarian and espoused polarizing views.

However, this strategy backfired in many suburban areas. While Trump had successfully energized rural voters in 2016, these far-right candidates struggled to replicate his appeal. As a midterm election, 2022 lacked the high rural turnout Trump had previously inspired, leaving Republicans overly reliant on a suburban electorate that was increasingly alienated by extremist rhetoric.

Why Democrats Held Strong in Suburbs During the 2022 Midterms

So, even with Trump off the ballot and despite Biden’s popularity being at one of its lowest points, Democrats managed to perform very strongly in the suburbs during the 2022 midterms.

This result wasn’t an accident—it came down to two major factors.

First, Trump’s presidency didn’t just change the Republican Party—it fundamentally reshaped it. During his four years in office, and even more so after he left, the party shifted further right. Trump’s efforts to challenge the 2020 election and his shift to a heavy authoritarianism inspired a wave of fringe, far-right candidates to run for office. By 2022, Congress and the slate of Republican nominees for House and Senate races were filled with more extremist candidates, very young, very far to the right, many who had molded themselves after Trump, adopting his style and positions.

But here’s the thing: they weren’t Trump. While these candidates tried to replicate his 2016 success, they fell short.

Unlike Trump, who had an unparalleled ability to energize rural voters, these candidates couldn’t inspire the same level of rural turnout or support. And because it was a midterm election—a time when rural turnout typically dips— Trump’s absence from the ballot left a major gap in Republican support.

The Suburbs: Higher Turnout, Broader Reach

This is where the suburbs came in. Suburban voters show up. They consistently turn out in higher numbers than rural or urban voters, especially in midterm elections. That made them the most significant voting bloc in 2022. But the far-right tilt of many Republican candidates didn’t play well in the suburbs. Moderate suburban voters, who might have been open to voting Republican under different circumstances, rejected candidates they viewed as too extreme.

At the same time, rural voters—many of whom admired these far-right candidates—were less motivated to vote without Trump on the ballot. That left Republicans in a tough spot: unable to bridge the enthusiasm gap in rural areas while losing ground in the suburbs. Democrats, on the other hand, were able to hold steady in suburban areas, where voters showed up in large numbers and often stuck with the party.

Suburban Voters: The Key to 2022

While suburban voters aren’t a monolith, they tend to share some defining characteristics. They tend to be more moderate than rural voters, more diverse in their demographics and priorities, and, most importantly, they vote. Their turnout rates are higher than those of rural or urban voters, making them the driving force in any midterm election.

What happened in 2022 was simple: suburban voters showed up, but rural voters didn’t. Republican candidates, many of them shaped by Trump’s brand of politics, couldn’t connect with suburban moderates, and without Trump himself to energize the rural base, turnout in those areas fell short. Democrats, by contrast, held onto suburban support, benefiting from the higher turnout that these areas reliably deliver.

The result? A strong showing for Democrats in the suburbs, despite Biden’s unpopularity and the absence of Trump as a direct factor. This dynamic underscores just how important the suburbs are—and how essential it is for both parties to understand and navigate their complexities.

2022 Midterms and the Dobbs Impact

In 2022, in addition to the general rise in extremism within the Republican party, the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, shaped the political environment—especially in the suburbs. This wasn’t just about suburban voters rejecting Trumpism; it also revealed that many suburban voters shared key policy preferences with Democrats. The ruling energized many, many, suburban voters, particularly white, highly educated voters and women — many of whom turned out in large numbers for Democratic candidates. It suggested that suburban support for Democrats might be more sustainable than some had thought.

Across the country, suburban voters helped secure big wins for Democrats in critical battleground states. In Wisconsin, Democrats won the gubernatorial race by four points; in Michigan, by 11; and in Pennsylvania, by nearly 15. These were all strong margins in states that are usually highly competitive. What stood out was the role of suburban voters in driving these victories. Many were motivated by a backlash to the Dobbs ruling and Republican policies on abortion, which they saw as extreme or out of touch.

The Democratic success wasn’t just because Republicans ran weak candidates. It was also because suburban voters—especially women—felt their rights were under threat and aligned with Democrats on this key issue.

Not a Universal Trend

But while Dobbs had a massive impact, its effect was not universal.

It’s easy to look at the suburbs trending blue in places like Michigan or Pennsylvania and jump to the conclusion that all suburbs reacted the same way — but that wasn’t the case. But as mentioned, suburbs aren’t monolithic, and the political shifts varied significantly depending on the region.

A Divided Suburban Reality

Conservative Suburbs in the South and Mountain West

In more religious and culturally conservative states like Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina, and Utah, many suburban voters actually saw the Dobbs ruling as a victory. These voters were inspired to support Republicans, viewing the decision as proof that the GOP was delivering on long-promised goals. Instead of shifting left, these suburban areas either remained solidly Republican or moved even further right.

In states like Tennessee, the suburbs around cities such as Memphis and Nashville outwardly resemble those in more competitive states like Arizona or Georgia. However, their political character is starkly different. These suburbs are overwhelmingly white—some counties are upwards of 80% white—whereas suburbs around Atlanta or Phoenix are far more racially diverse. Additionally, Tennessee’s suburban population tends to skew older and more religious, traits that correlate strongly with conservative political preferences.

As a result, these suburbs have remained reliably Republican. Unlike suburban areas in Michigan or Pennsylvania, which have shifted left in recent elections, suburbs in Tennessee and other deep-red states showed little to no movement toward Democrats in 2020 or 2022. In fact, their political behavior is often closer to that of rural areas than to the more moderate or progressive suburbs found in states like Virginia or Washington.

Suburbs in the Blue States

In states like New York, California, and Oregon where Democrats have dominated state politics for decades, the Dobbs ruling didn’t have the same impact. Abortion rights were never seriously at risk in these states. There was little chance that Republicans could take control of both the governor’s office and state legislature in a single election cycle—or even over several cycles. Because of this, the urgency surrounding abortion rights was far less pronounced in these states than in battlegrounds like Arizona or Wisconsin.

Voters in these states already felt that abortion rights were secure, so the issue didn’t resonate as much. Instead, Republicans were able to exploit other concerns like rising crime, homelessness, inflation, and the cost of living, which hit suburban voters particularly hard.

Take New York, for example. Kathy Hochul only won the governor’s race by six points—a huge drop from Biden’s 23-point margin in 2020. In California, Gavin Newsom won by 19 points, which was still a comfortable margin but far below expectations for a Democratic stronghold. This trend extended to House races in both states. Seats that Biden had won by 10 or more points flipped to Republicans, who successfully targeted suburban areas with messaging on crime and economic anxiety.

Lee Zeldin’s campaign in New York highlighted just how much ground Republicans could gain in suburban areas, even in blue states. Zeldin not only retained strong support in rural areas but also made huge gains in the suburbs. On Long Island, for example, districts that Biden had narrowly won in 2020 swung heavily to Zeldin, with some areas shifting by 15 points or more.

This wasn’t just about Zeldin, either. In the Hudson Valley, Long Island, and parts of upstate New York, Republicans flipped several House seats by leaning into issues like crime and inflation. Even against far-right opponents, Democrats struggled to hold these districts because voters were frustrated with local Democratic leadership.

A Reduced Trump Effect

The absence of Trump on the ballot also lessened the stark partisan divide that had defined 2020, particularly in suburban areas. Without Trump as a polarizing figure, some suburban voters felt less urgency to vote against Republicans, especially in states where the Dobbs ruling didn’t feel as immediately consequential. This dynamic allowed Republicans to make gains or hold their ground in certain suburban regions, particularly in states like New York and California, where local issues overshadowed national ones.

2022 Midterms and Trending Conservatism

The Dobbs ruling’s impact on the 2022 midterms underscored the regional variability of suburban politics. While it galvanized voters in swing states where abortion rights were under threat, it was less of a driving force in states where Democrats’ control made such threats unlikely. This discrepancy highlights how localized contexts continue to shape suburban political behavior, even amid major national developments.

Translating This to the 2024 Outlook

Looking ahead to 2024, Democrats are not expecting to win every suburban area or even a majority of them. Several factors—some favorable and others challenging—will shape the suburban political landscape.

Trump’s Return to the Ballot

In 2024, Trump will be on the ballot. Given this, many suburban areas that shifted toward Democrats in 2016 and 2020 are likely to remain in their corner. These areas turned away from the Republican Party as a direct reaction to Trumpism, and it seems unlikely that voters who rejected Trump in four consecutive elections (2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022) will suddenly shift back to supporting him in 2024 - it’s not impossible.

Vulnerable Suburbs and Declining Biden Support

However, there are many other suburban areas where Democratic support is more fragile. Suburbs that narrowly supported Biden in 2020 and shifted rightward in 2022 could trend further Republican in 2024. For instance, the suburbs around Atlanta, which have become reliably Democratic in recent cycles, saw their margins tighten in the 2022 gubernatorial election when Brian Kemp, a center-right Republican, won re-election. These areas might trend right relative to 2020, especially if Biden’s approval ratings—already significantly lower than in 2020—fail to recover. Voters who reluctantly supported Biden in 2020 could abandon him if they perceive his leadership as increasingly ineffective.

Suburban Challenges in Democratic Strongholds

In addition, in suburban areas within deeply-blue states like New York, California, and Oregon, Democrats may face additional challenges. These areas shifted heavily against Democrats in 2022, largely due to dissatisfaction with state-level governance. In New York, for example, Governor Kathy Hochul has struggled with poor approval ratings, often seen as inconsistent in her political positions. Her policies, ranging from progressive measures to more conservative moves like congestion pricing, have alienated both her base and moderates.

Similarly, in California, Governor Gavin Newsom has faced criticism for a wide range of policies that have frustrated both Democrats and Republicans. His attempts to balance progressive and moderate positions have resulted in a net loss of support, particularly in suburban areas. Oregon’s new Democratic governor, Tina Kotek, has also been unpopular, contributing to a political environment where Democrats are struggling to regain their 2018 and 2020 levels of suburban strength.

Trump’s Resilience and the Biden Factor

One potential advantage for Democrats is Trump’s presence on the ballot, which could again galvanize suburban voters against him. However, despite Trump’s numerous controversies since 2020, polling suggests his unpopularity hasn’t deepened significantly among his base or swing voters. His time out of office may have softened his image for some voters who supported him in 2016 but abandoned him in 2020. These voters, now dissatisfied with Biden’s presidency, might return to Trump, viewing him as the lesser of two evils.

This dynamic could play out in swing-state suburbs, particularly in places like Georgia and Arizona. These states have only recently trended Democratic, and their suburban voters—many of whom flipped to Biden reluctantly in 2020—may shift back to Republicans if Biden’s standing doesn’t improve significantly.

Beyond the Simplistic Narratives

So, to summarize: the common narrative that Democrats’ suburban success during the Trump era was purely reactionary or “leased” oversimplifies the situation. While Trump’s presence undoubtedly shaped suburban voting patterns, Democrats made real gains by addressing key suburban priorities and benefiting from demographic and cultural shifts. The idea that these gains will entirely vanish without Trump on the ballot is equally flawed.

But Biden’s declining popularity and local governance challenges in key states could open opportunities for Republicans to make gains. The outcome will hinge on how effectively each party addresses the diverse concerns of suburban voters and navigates the complex interplay of national and local dynamics.

Color: The Trump Era and Its Lingering Impact

The Trump era marked a significant transformation within the Republican Party, building on shifts that had begun during the Obama years. This period wasn’t an abrupt departure from the past but rather the culmination of trends that had been developing for over a decade, including a pronounced rightward shift and an increasingly obstructive stance.

The roots of Trump’s transformation were laid during the Obama presidency, as Republicans in Congress adopted a strategy of obstruction. High-profile actions like Mitch McConnell’s unprecedented refusal to consider Obama’s Supreme Court nominee and Representative Joe Wilson’s infamous interruption of the State of the Union were emblematic of a party becoming more combative and ideologically rigid. These actions, fueled in part by personal animosity toward Obama, were emblematice a broader rightward shift that would ultimately precipitated the party’s ultimate tranformation into Trumpland.

The Tea Party movement of the early 2010s served as a precursor of the Trump era where many of these far-right, almost-populist Republicans gained prominence during this time, but their extreme positions often cost the GOP winnable races in both the House and Senate. Trump’s eventual rise to power in 2016 can almost be seen as the natural evolution of these earlier trends, consolidating the party’s shift toward a more combative, populist identity.

Trump’s Lasting Influence

Just as the Trump era didn't really come out of nothing and probably won't go into nothing — Trump’s impact on the Republican Party will likely extend well beyond his time in office. Even as some Republican leaders have expressed a desire to move past Trump, his influence over the party’s base remains strong because so much of their voters really buy into what Trump is selling. This was evident in the 2022 midterms, where Trump-backed candidates dominated Republican primaries. Many of these candidates closely modeled themselves after Trump, embracing his combative style and extreme positions.

The primaries highlighted Trump’s ability to shape the party’s direction: nine of the ten House Republicans who voted to impeach him after the January 6th insurrection either retired or lost their primaries to Trump-endorsed challengers. In Wyoming, Liz Cheney was defeated by a staggering 33-point margin, while in Washington’s 3rd District, Jamie Herrera Beutler lost her seat in a jungle primary to far-right extremist candidate Joe Kent. Trump’s endorsements alone were enough to sway upwards of a third or even half of the Republican primary electorate to switch against them, even against incumbents they had previously supported.

A Challenge for Democrats

While Trump’s continued influence has driven the Republican Party further to the right, making it potentially less appealing to some suburban voters, Democrats cannot rely solely on this dynamic to secure suburban support. The party faces a significant dual challenge that underscores the fragility of the Democratic coalition —emblematized by the difficulties Democrats face in maintaining their gains in suburban areas while stemming their losses in rural ones—a balancing act that will remain central to their electoral strategy moving forward.

Now, not all Republicans are extremists and candidates like Glenn Youngkin in Virginia - who while being fairly conservative, is seen to be more in the line of Republicans like Mitt Romey and emblematic of the old conservative tradition, which was much more focused on fiscal conservatism rather than culture wars or populism ends. Others like Brian Kemp in Georgia, and Brian Dahle in California have demonstrated that more traditional or center-right Republicans can still perform well in suburban areas. These candidates focused less on Trump-style populism and more on fiscal conservatism, local issues, and governance, which resonated with suburban voters.

The 2024 cycle will test this further, as Republicans are fielding stronger candidates in key Senate races. In Montana, Tim Sheehy, a veteran and businessman, is seen as a much more promising candidate than prior nominees like Matt Rosendale, and could pose a serious challenge to Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Similarly, in Michigan, Mike Rogers, a more center-right Republican, has the potential to win back suburban voters who shifted toward Democrats in recent years.

The Importance of Candidate Quality

For Democrats, the key to maintaining suburban support lies in nominating strong candidates who can can make strong connections with diverse suburban electorates. This doesn’t necessarily mean pivoting to the center or choosing candidates of a specific demographic profile. Success in the suburbs has come from a variety of approaches.

In Michigan, moderate Democrat Elissa Slotkin, on the more moderate side of the spectrum, won re-election in a Trump district by emphasizing her pragmatic approach. Meanwhile, Democrats like Raphael Warnock in Georgia illustrate how the right candidate can thrive in suburban areas, even while being firmly on the liberal side of the spectrum. Warnock won strong margins in suburban precincts, not just because he faced a weak Republican opponent, but because he positioned himself as a compelling and credible candidate.

Warnock’s strength lay in his ability to balance progressive values with a pragmatic, results-oriented image. While he clearly aligned with the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, he avoided being perceived as too far left, like members of "the Squad" such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose rhetoric can alienate moderate voters. Instead, Warnock projected an image of someone focused on getting things done—a legislator willing to work across the aisle and address practical issues that matter to suburban voters.

His tenure as a lawmaker between 2020 and his re-election campaign bolstered this perception. Warnock’s campaign rhetoric emphasized his competence and ability to achieve tangible results, which resonated strongly in suburban areas, showing that crafting a relatable and credible image is often more effective than ideological moderation alone.

Lessons for Democrats Moving Forward

Warnock’s success highlights an important point: there’s no single formula for winning suburban voters. It’s not about being moderate, belonging to a specific demographic, or espousing a particular set of policies. Instead, it’s about presenting a cohesive and compelling narrative that connects with suburban voters’ priorities and values.

This is especially critical as Democrats face challenges in other areas. With declining support in rural regions and even some erosion in urban strongholds, consolidating and expanding suburban gains is essential for the party’s future success. To do so, Democrats need to focus on candidate quality and field candidates who can balance progressive policies with a pragmatic, results-oriented image and build authentic relationships with suburban voters between election cycles to ensure their concerns are heard and addressed.

If Democrats hope to maintain their competitiveness in Senate races, presidential elections, and the House, they must continue to consolidate their support in suburban areas. Warnock’s campaign could offer a model for how to do so: focus on credible candidates who can connect with suburban voters’ priorities while maintaining a clear and compelling narrative.

Looking Ahead to 2024

The suburbs remain a crucial battleground for both parties, and the outcome in 2024 will hinge on how effectively each side addresses the unique and evolving concerns of suburban voters. Democrats, in particular, must consolidate their suburban gains while addressing challenges in rural and urban areas to maintain a competitive edge in the House, Senate, and presidential races.

As 2024 approaches, Democrats are not counting on winning every suburban area—or even the majority. The suburban landscape is shaped by numerous factors, some favoring Democrats and others working against them. While Trump’s presence on the ballot will likely reenergize certain suburban areas that shifted to Democrats in 2016 and 2020, the broader dynamics are more complex.

To succeed in 2024, Democrats must adopt a nuanced approach to suburban voters. Relying solely on anti-Trump sentiment will not be enough, particularly in areas where local issues take precedence. Democrats must focus on prioritizing policies that resonate with suburban voters, such as education, healthcare, community safety, and economic stability. These concerns often carry more weight than national political debates.

It’s also imperative that Democrats establish a lasting presence in suburban communities, engaging with voters year-round through town halls, office hours, and support for local initiatives. Building trust outside of election cycles is critical to sustaining suburban support.

Fielding Democratic candidates who balance progressive values with pragmatic solutions. Effective candidates must also be skilled communicators, capable of addressing misinformation and connecting national priorities to local impacts.

While Democrats face real challenges in suburban areas, the opportunity to consolidate and expand their gains is equally significant. Suburban voters are diverse in their demographics and priorities, requiring tailored approaches for different regions. For example, addressing housing affordability and infrastructure might resonate in high-cost suburbs in California, while economic recovery and healthcare access could be more compelling in swing-state suburbs like those in Pennsylvania or Arizona.

Ultimately, Democrats’ ability to win in 2024 will depend on how effectively they navigate the shifting dynamics of suburban America. The challenge is substantial, but the opportunity is equally great. By aligning their strategies with the evolving priorities of suburban voters, Democrats can solidify their existing support, win back areas where they’ve lost ground, and compete more effectively in regions previously dominated by Republicans. Success in the suburbs will be pivotal to determining their fortunes in the presidential race, Senate battles, and control of the House.