The numbers look particularly startling in mid-sized metro areas such as Charlotte and Nashville, which until fairly recently had the bulk of their suburban growth contained in the same county as the center city. Extreme southeastern (and suburban) Mecklenburg County, of which Charlotte is the seat, voted for President Bush by 60 to 70% margins. But those numbers were obscured to all but political junkies by inner city returns which tipped Mecklenburg as a whole to Kerry.
To those who hadn't been paying close attention, the percentages, especially when considered along with the explosive growth, of places such as Union County, are rather eye-popping.
It's not just politics, but demographics in general: I don't think the exurbs have been getting their due. In the Charlotte area, and I'm sure elsewhere, we're being bombarded by press praise of "new urbanism," the "back to the city" movement, and the supposed benefits of mass transit (rail in particular) and the high density zoning which accompanies it. Problem is (though one rarely sees it reported, at least in the Charlotte Observer), folks aren't buying it. The pejorative "sprawl" is invariably used when it is mentioned. To the urbanists, one acre-plus lots, old oak and beech trees, red-tailed hawks, deer, neighborhood schools, low property taxes, and solidly GOP voting patterns are some sort of sin. God, I hate it for them...
Yep. The figure I look at (and the only one worth looking at) is the trend in larger metro areas as a whole, including fringe areas. Bush got pounded in those in 2000 north of the Mason Dixon line in general, except Cincinnati, which is full of folks from the Appalacians, who brought their retro beliefs with them, the two fat belt metro areas, the Twin Cities and Milwaukee, and Indianapolis. Bush did better in 2004, in general, although not in the Philly metro area, and not much better in the Chicago area, and slid back a bit in the Twin Cities.