In another blow to Democrats, Republican-leaning exurban counties are growing rapidly. Well, not really, but the definition what is exurban is broadening to the point where the exurbs now significantly outnumber the suburbs.
As Ruy Teixeira notes:
I have now obtained a categorization of every county in the US on the basis of NCEC's original criteria and have conducted some analysis using their categories. (Note: they appear to have modified their criteria slightly since their original criteria were elaborated, but I do not have access to these modified criteria.) This analysis produces some interesting results which further underscore, I think, the need for much more careful and selective use of the term "exurban".
1. By NCEC's definition, 581 counties in the US are exurban and just 131 are suburban.
2. By NCEC's definition, 29 percent of the US poplation lives in exurbia and just 19 percent in suburbia (!). (If you've got a geographer friend, tell that one to him/her to get a good laugh.)
3. NCEC's exurban counties provided 31 percent of the vote in 2004, 2 points over their population share of 29 percent. Note that these counties provided 30 percent of the vote in both 2000 and 1996, so the exurban share of the vote, even under NCEC's peculiar definition, is increasing very slowly, not rapidly.
4. Once you adjust the increase in votes in these counties for population increase (see my earlier post on this subject), their adjusted rise in turnout in 2004 was actually less than in rural, suburban and urban counties, as defined by NCEC.
What is actually taking place in the exurbs rather than exponential growth is something far more worrying and all too common. A Republican definition / talking point used to describe a demographic where conservatives are gaining has been readily adopted by the media, thanks to the Republican Noise Machine, and then greatly expanded to include as many people as possible no matter how poorly the definition applies outside of its original use. This serves two purposes. First, while supplementing the "mandate" narrative, it paints a national picture of a still growing Republican majority. Second, and more disturbingly, by dominating the national discussion over changing political demographics, these talking points serves as propagandistic frames that allow large numbers of people to think of themselves as naturally Republican, no matter what their current voting tendencies may actually be. We all know that people who live in exurbs tend to vote Republican, so if Republicans can convince as many people as possible that they live in exurbs than they are one step closer to becoming the "natural" governing party both now and in the future. We saw this take place with "security moms," a Luntz frame that first laid its eggs inside the brains of, and then whose offspring eventually crawled out the mouth of, nearly every talking head during the election campaign. By dominating the way people think of themselves in relation to the national political demographic narrative, through terms like "exurbs" and "security moms," Republicans are controlling the contemporary and future political narratives in this country.
My question is, where are our talking points about the rising generation of Democrats, considering that we dominated the under 30 vote? Generation Progress, or something to that effect.
