Even as urban voters are heavily Democratic and rural voters are more Republican, the suburban voters went more for Democrats. (My guess is that there is some overlap between suburban and small town here as the US urban population is around 80%.)
When considering the most important issues in the election, voters in urban and suburban areas were more alike (with some slight differences in rural areas and small towns regarding immigration and democracy):
Both because the suburbs contain so many potential voters and there are some suburbanites who can be swayed (see how they voted in 2024), this will be something to watch for leading up to 2028. If the economy was the leading issue in 2026, what changes would influence suburban voters one way or the other?
Most voters say the economy or the state of democracy is the top issue facing the country, with the cost of living and government corruption weighing heavily on many Americans’ minds as they cast a ballot in Tuesday’s midterm elections. The poll also signals a strong desire for Congress to take a more forceful role in checking the presidency.
Given these sentiments, what will politicians now do about housing? It is not the only expensive or costly items voters care about; see concerns about gas prices or groceries or utility bills. But it is a persistent and important concern. It is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, line item in household budgets. It is tied to all sorts of other life opportunities and outcomes. Good housing at a reasonable cost is something people (read voters) want.
Some directions we might see in the coming months:
-More statewide efforts to address local zoning issues. If individual communities can reject housing, can states allow more situations where housing can be built regardless of local concerns?
-More federal monies funneled toward helping people obtain housing. This could take different forms but it could help people purchase homes or find rentals.
-More incentives for builders and developers. What could help them provide cheaper housing? What could help them build more units?
-Resources for redeveloping spaces. If there are properties not living up to their potential (whether they are residential, commercial, or institutional), money or changed policies or something else might spur turning them into needed housing.
-More agreement that the federal government should step in or should address housing needs. Public housing may not be popular but local governments are not always open to big housing change. Who can help address the logjam of housing needs?
These are not very specific as there are multiple opinions and options.
At the same time, curbing inflation and affecting the price of everyday goods would be welcomed by many but still does not get at the fundamental issue many Americans face: how can I find decent housing at a reasonable price? People want action, not just a lot of possibilities.
Voters in at least 29 jurisdictions across the country passed bans or restrictions on data centers Tuesday, reflecting the widespread public revulsion to the facilities and adding to the growing pushback on the ambitions of the artificial intelligence industry.
Data center construction also suffered setbacks in several states that are hot spots for the projects, as Democratic candidates promising to curb the rapid proliferation of the compute warehouses won governors’ races…
A voter poll conducted on behalf of major TV networks said early on Wednesday that 56 percent of midterms voters considered AI and data centers to be a major or crucial factor in their vote. That ranked them as the least influential among five issues, far behind government corruption, the war in Iran and the cost of living…
It’s unclear whether local and state restrictions will meaningfully slow the frantic building of AI data centers around the United States. Some industry officials say that a significant portion of the roughly 600 large-scale AI data centers either planned or under construction is unlikely to become operational regardless of public reaction.
Three quick thoughts in response:
With these election results, this does not necessarily mean that data centers cannot or will not be built in some places. Does this mean places and officials open to data centers will build more within their geography? Is this an opportunity for some locations?
I’m curious to see how conversations about AI and its potential line up with conversations about people not wanting to live near them. What is the point where people say data centers are needed because AI is needed for particular uses and so they have to go somewhere near us? Is there any point that this happens if there are always options where data centers can be located elsewhere?
When I read about NIMBY responses to all sorts of land uses, I keep coming back to an idea: why not have municipalities or special government zones where these undesirable land uses could be concentrated? Use the Chicago area as an example: if many residents in the city and suburbs do not want data centers near them, is there a way to put a bunch of data centers in one municipality with no residents nearby? Out of sight and hearing, out of mind?
Records show that the pope is registered under his baptismal name, Robert Francis Prevost, to vote in the Chicago suburb of New Lenox, where his brother John lives. The Chicago-born pontiff has cast ballots in both Republican and Democratic primaries in recent years and cast a vote in the 2024 presidential election….
The pope’s ballot is expected to include votes for the senate and governor race in Illinois, along with house of representative, state and county elections.
While there is interest in comparing the Pope’s political views versus that of the current US administration, I would be interested to know how he voted regarding local candidates and issues. As noted above, this includes voting for state and local elections. Local choices could include for county boards, forest preserves, local judges, and municipal governments. It might include local referendum issues about property tax increases for school district needs or other specific local questions. Local residents might struggle to keep up with all the local issues and all the names on signs that pop up at each election cycle, let alone someone who is living elsewhere and voting from a distance.
The shorthand the media often uses for state and national issues – it is Democrats vs. Republicans, one party wins and the other loses – do not always hold up in suburban elections. Sometimes they do; elections for county boards and school boards in the Chicago suburbs can now echo national party platforms. But sometimes they do not. There are local election slates. Or particular histories and character in communities that influence local elections. A suburban community may lean more Democratic or Republican in larger political races but the local political activity can be unique.
New Lenox, Illinois is a unique suburban community southwest of Chicago. It has grown rapidly in recent years, increasing from under 3,000 residents in 1970 to over 27,000 in 2020. The suburb is largely white with the 2020 Census finding over 87% were white alone. A 2015 promotional campaign for the community emphasized that it is “home to proud Americans.” How do leaders and residents understand their community’s character, considering past, present, and future, and how does this affect their vote?
After the election concludes, there will be data regarding races – national, state, and local – that New Lenox residents voted in. It sounds like the Pope’s votes will be part of this.
Mike Rogers and Abdul El-Sayed tried to discredit each other’s fitness to serve us in the U.S. Senate by bringing up property they own outside Michigan. Rogers said El-Sayed owns a home in the United Arab Emirates. El-Sayed questioned why Rogers took the “McMansion” he owns in Florida off the market. You’ll have to decide how relevant their real estate holdings are.
To call someone’s house a McMansion is not something usually said positively. I would guess most people would not talk to their friends or family about their McMansions. To call someone’s house a McMansion typically is meant to critique their taste and lifestyle. Here, the debate reference to a McMansion seems to be about the money acquired and spent and the kind of home purchased.
This does not mean McMansions are uncommon. Whether talking Michigan or Florida, there are many McMansions built in those states in recent decades. The average voter may not live in a McMansion given their price and where they are located. At the same time, some of those McMansion residents might be suburban swing voters.
How many politicians actually live in McMansions? Does the percentage of politicians living in McMansions exceed that of the general population or do politicians live disproportionately live in others kinds of housing? Or perhaps there are at least a few major politicians who live in average or smaller housing; are there any major politicians living in single-family homes under 1,500 square feet? If housing is a reflection of one’s political values and actions (as suggested above), such answers might matter to some.
Since that moment, I’ve conducted more than 400 focus groups with thousands of voters across the political spectrum. To my knowledge, this is the largest and most consistent qualitative study of voter sentiment during the Trump era. Here’s what I’ve learned: People are wild. They are full of contradictions. They lament our deep political divisions while raging about their political enemies. They believe in grace but cut their Trumpy brother out of their life forever. They’re married to an immigrant but voted for the guy who wants to deport millions of people who have the same immigration status as their wife. They hate the government and want to lower the national debt, but they also want the government to spend more to help them and their communities. They call themselves pro-life but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I could go on.
This suggests voters have multiple motivations and opinions. They are not necessarily consistent in their principles and actions. They react to both what is immediately around them and broader social forces and changes.
In other words, the voters are people. They are doing their best to make sense of the world around them. Translating those beliefs and responses into neatly packaged political party platforms or bundles of issues that candidates consistently talk about is not easy.
With all that said, listening to voters can be helpful:
Listening to voters is a cheat code for understanding politics—democracy, after all, is the collective will of the voters—yet few people in politics do it. If you’re running a campaign, you might do a series of focus groups with voters in your district or state. If you’re a politician, you might go on “listening tours,” chat with people at the state fair, or host campaign events. But rarely do politicians and campaigns take the time to talk in-depth about why people feel the way they do.
The reality is, the closer you get to institutional politics, the further you are from the people whom politics and government are supposed to serve. Washington is less a swamp than a bubble, inside of which the rest of America becomes an abstraction.
Where is there room to find common ground or interests? Are there ways to connect with what people are experiencing or care about beyond providing talking points and political tactics?
This could also be linked to the reasons Americans often like local politics and government: these are potential neighbors who have more of a stake and interest in day-to-day community life. Go up to the regional or state or national level and it can be hard to connect to all the experiences and concerns voters have.
Sociologist Katie Gaddini argues in Esther’s Army: The Christian Women Who Power the American Rightthat conservative women in the suburbs helped Donald Trump become president twice. Here is how she describes “the white suburbanites” (the title for Chapter 6 in the book):
The debate Rebekah had with her Bible study group exemplifies how American suburbia has emerged as a political battleground for the Left and Right. Poised between the Republican-dominated rural areas and the Democratic stronghold of many American cities, the suburbs have been up for grabs since the Republicans lost their dominance there in the 1990s. The partisan nature of suburbia means that when political polarization ripples across the nation, it often feels acute there. This heightened sense of division was especially pronounced during the peak of the pandemic. (136)
But that’s where the commonality between my story and that of the women I researched ends. I moved to Boston in 2008 and continued to hop from one city to another over the next fifteen years: from Boston to Johannesburg to San Francisco, Madrid, London, and then, finally, returning to the American suburban sprawl of my childhood. Along the way, I left evangelicalism, and the Republican party. Meeting women like Rebekah, around my age, who shared a similar background, help up a mirror of what my life might have looked like if i had never left. Maybe I, too, would have taken up the mantle alongside other White middle-class Christian women to defend the suburbs from outsiders. (139)
“I wept when I heard him say that he would protect us,” a wealthy Christian suburban woman told me after hearing Trump at a rally in Coachella, a city in California. Among the diverse groups of people who brought Trump back to the White House in 2024, White Christian suburban women were some of his most enthusiastic supporters. His message of preserving the version of suburbia they knew and loved resonated with them. A solid 60 percent voted for him, Rebekah and Aimee included. (150)
In this sense, Trump endorses suburban women’s role. When he vows to protect the suburbs through strict immigration and housing policies, he is promising to maintain the racial and class homogeneity that has long defined American suburbia. His message validates White Christian women’s decision to live there, framing it as a moral reward. (154)
When Americans started moving to the suburbs in large numbers, first at the end of the 1800s and early 1900s and then more so in the postwar era, commentators expected the suburbs to be conservative. These were suburban residents with means, homeowners, people who emphasized family life away from the big city. (This addressed broader patterns but did not consider the broad range of people and communities across suburbia).
As Gaddini notes, the suburbs have changed as they are more diverse now in terms of race and ethnicity, social class, and religion. This has intersected with politics as plenty of suburbanites vote for Democrats and some suburban communities pursue what might be perceived as more liberal policies.
By considering gender among conservative voters, this book contributes to understanding the American suburbs. Gaddini argues conservative suburban women saw their suburban life and communities as under threat, whether from political liberals and their policies or responses to the pandemic or discussions and actions related to race. The suburban communities to which they had moved – and they would often see as having done so by their own efforts – could decline and they did not want to see this happen. They wanted to hear a national leader push back and say that the idealized suburban life would be defended.
What happens to these more conservative suburban pockets and communities will be interesting to see in coming years. Part of the history of the American suburbs includes exclusion and this will likely continue by a variety of means, including by politics and religion.
Despite Cook County residents’ long, loud complaints about out-of-control property taxes and government spending, a majority of them couldn’t be bothered to turn out to vote in recent elections when given the chance to decide whether taxes should be hiked.
About 1 in 5 eligible voters decided the outcome of costly binding property tax questions in various suburbs in the past couple of years, according to a new study from the Cook County treasurer’s office…
Voter turnout in primaries is typically lower than general elections as it is, and even fewer voters participate in local consolidated elections.
But the report also found participation dipped on ballots for property tax questions in particular. It floated a few reasons why people who do vote might skip referendums: the questions are often at the bottom of the ballot or confusingly written…
Previous reports from her office have highlighted higher turnouts in wealthier and whiter areas. While the income trends continued in the 2025 and 2026 elections, there was not enough data to see whether the racial trends shifted because most of the referendums were in majority white communities.
It sounds like the factors cited above could be addressed. Don’t bury them at the bottom of the ballot. Make sure they are written in clear language. Help people know what is on the ballot far ahead of time. Put the tax questions on the bigger election cycles. For those who want to promote good governance (rather than even the appearance of sneaking things through on the ballot), this is doable.
I wonder if there would be any traction for elected officials to run on the platform of getting more people involved in local political decisions. Rather than targeting a small portion of voters or a political base, could someone aim to get more people to decide questions like these about property taxes?
The US men’s soccer team has started out strong at the World Cup. American flags, sing alongs, celebrations of wins. Might their success bring Americans together in a fractured time? A few thoughts:
Americans like sports, both domestic and international.
They may like sports but they really like winning at an international level. The Olympics and World Cup are good examples.
For lots of reasons, the United States is not a world power at soccer – the team is good but not among the best. Do Americans see themselves as an underdog at the World Cup, and, if so, does this help bring people together?
Does the unity while at a game or watching at the same time continue at all past the event or is it a completely in the moment phenomenon?
Which Americans tend to follow soccer? How much does this fandom overlap with enjoying the NFL, MLB, or NBA? How does following soccer fit with political affiliations? Is following soccer seen as a repudiation of “typical” American fandom?
If politics are like sports in certain ways, are sports still more interesting or worthwhile to more Americans (compared to politics)?
What might all these questions lead to? Many may enjoy the World Cup in North America and it could get interesting if the United States makes a deeper run than they have in the past. But conflicts over celebrating July 4th and the leadup to the midterm elections may render any World Cup togetherness a pleasant memory.
Democratic state Sen. Laura Ellman of Naperville is among the plan’s proponents. Ellman and other lawmakers staged a news conference Tuesday in Springfield to outline a slew of proposals aimed at making housing more affordable for owners and renters…
Other suburban sponsors and cosponsors of BUILD-related legislation include state Sens. Mark Walker of Arlington Heights, Adriane Johnson of Buffalo Grove and Cristina Castro of Elgin.
Aligned against them are lawmakers including Republican state Rep. Martin McLaughlin of Barrington Hills; municipal leaders in South Barrington, Barrington Hills, Algonquin and other suburbs; and groups including the Illinois State Association of Counties, the DuPage Mayors and Managers Conference and the Northwest Municipal Conference.
At a city council meeting earlier this month, Naperville Mayor Scott Wehrli said the BUILD proposals promote housing density, not affordability…
McLaughlin hopes pressure from municipal leaders opposed to BUILD will be strong enough to persuade enough Democrats in the General Assembly to break with Pritzker and oppose the legislation.
Illinois has a lot of suburban residents (as does the United States as a whole). I would interested to hear from suburban lawmakers what they are hearing from these residents and voters. How many are for these proposed changes, how many are against? If people think their property values might be threatened, they tend to respond. At the same time, those seeking out housing might also be making their voices heard.
On a related note, if suburban voters are critical in national elections because of the number of them plus the number of suburbanites who might be swayed by particular issues or leaders, might legislative votes in Illinois come down to suburban representatives?
It would also be interesting to hear if there local leaders and communities who see such legislation as providing an opportunity for growth and change in their community. The population in the Chicago region and Illinois has been relatively stagnant in recent decades. Could adding more housing provide a new opportunity to add residents and status?
