Other than that, glad to see Democratic gains everywhere.

1. That's far from a Northeastern trend.  In my state of Minnesota, Democrats knocked off incumbents in the suburbs during the 2004 elections for state house.  Some were quite startling.  Kerry carried many suburbs previously thought to be Republican strongholds, such as Edina and Eagan.  In fact, there's a special election in two weeks to fill a state senate seat.  This is a suburban district which Kerry won by 1%, and we can win.  You should contribute to Terri Bonoff's campaign if you are able.

2. The suburbs do have real problems.  Crowded class sizes, assaults on civil liberties, environmental pollution and unnecessary wars affect suburban voters as much as anyone.

We also worry about some things urban voters probably don't think of as much, but are very real: suburban sprawl, land use, the price of gas.

As for gated communities? Leave Philly and drive out here to Chester County (or hop on the R5). You won't find too many "gated communities" here. Yes, you'll find plenty of rich people, but you'll also find a whole lot more middle-class and working class people. Condescension won't get them voting Democratic; listening to their needs and addressing them will.

I think it's the wealth issue that is the bridge to the rural areas.  Rural voters are usually less wealthy and are ripe for an Democratic economic message.  A lot of suburbs are very wealthy.

LI and No. VA tend to be social moderates.

In particular, I'm thinking of northern Virginia... 20 or 30 years ago, Arlington and Alexandria were pretty much considered the suburbs, Fairfax County was the right-wing exurbs (although no one was using the term "exurbs" back then), and Loudoun County was mostly cows. Now Arlington and Alexandria are pretty much treated as adjuncts of Washington DC (well, much whiter and wealthier, but still diverse and deep blue), the inner ring suburbs of Fairfax County are now getting racially mixed and becoming more reliably Democratic each year, and Loudoun County is the archetypal exurb (and if yesterday's results are any indication, trending Democratic too). What's happening may not be so much the people in the suburbs changing their mind as the fact that the "city" (and its strengths and weaknesses) is inexorably spreading out into the inner-ring suburbs, and the people who are afraid of the realities of the city are having to move further and further out into the sticks to avoid it.

I live in the suburbs--

After spending most of my life living in the other alternate reality- a college town (go Jayhawks!)

Suburbs are annoying.

There is no variety, some of the people there actually ARE people who want no "reality" intruding-

my neighbor parked his boat in his driveway for the winter(not unsightly), and the neighborhood association called him asking him to remove it(!) Like he has the money to park/store his boat somewhere else!

My city actually delegates all sorts of authority to these quasi-democratic (i.e. not at all democratic) neighborhood associations that collect dues and lord over things.  When there is a complaint about city services, they want it to come through the neighborhood association-- which of course means an extra layer of "democracy" to protect the city council from havnig to actually take a formal action on anything controversial.  

There has been an extreme amount of development since I moved here 20 years ago, but it is still a lot of farming.  In fact, according to the Cornell Cooperative Extension "Suffolk County is the largest agricultural county in New York State in sales of product. We have the largest and fastest growing wine industry, ranked second only to California in US grape production, and the state’s largest horticultural sales and service industry." http://www.cce.cornell.edu/suffolk/Programs/AGhome.htm.  Its also too far from NYC to be a common commute.  There is also the vacations homes in the Hamptons. Not a typical suburban mix.

I actually think that the results in Brookhaven Town were because of a change about 2 years ago when the Democratic candidate for Highway supervisor caught the town Department of Highways employees putting up hugh signs for all the Republican candidates.  The incumbent Highway supervisor denied that he knew about it and won that year, but during the next election, for the first time since I lived here, there weren't hugh signs on all the main roads for the Republicans and no signs for the Democrats.  That year the Democratic candidate for Highway supervisor won.  This year there were lots of small signs all over for all the candidates and the Democrats did well. This shows how a low position can make a difference in how the candidates up the ballot do.

In addition both candidates were women, eliminating another possible factor. The only real difference is that the incumbent was white and the challenger was black. The Republican incumbent won. The only Republican to do so against the Suzzo ticket.

It seems to me that race must have been a factor for people to split their votes this way. So much for all the rednecks being in the South.

Clinton helped "raise all boats" and everyone got richer and the economy did well -- but convincing a surbanite that helping EVERYONE (not just the top 1%) is better for the economy, and lending some tax dollars to someone downtown might make you better off in the long run ... that's tough.

republicans largely give up on urban areas, so they're easy for them to slam. with race and poverty issues usually playing out downtown, you can't really just say "tax cut" and please voters. as was noted earlier, dems try to win everywhere (someone said eagan minnesota, where i'm writing, and it's a great example) so "slamming surbubia" isn't really accurate. dems believe in a common good, so they try to appeal to voters everwhere. republicans appeal to where the voters are most sympathetic and they can win -- it's really empowering the people vs. empowering a party.

i thought chris nailed this one...