Interesting Barone piece in the Opinion Journal on demographic changes and how they might impact elections in the future:
Twenty years ago political analysts grasped the implications of the vast movement from Rust Belt to Sun Belt, a tilting of the table on balance toward Republicans; but with California leaning heavily to Democrats, that paradigm seems obsolete. What’s now in store is a shifting of political weight from a small Rust Belt which leans Democratic and from the much larger Coastal Megalopolises, where both secular top earners and immigrant low earners vote heavily Democratic, toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats. House seats and electoral votes will shift from New York, New Jersey and Illinois to Texas, Florida, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada; within California, House seats will shift from the Democratic coast to the Republican Inland Empire and Central Valley.
Demography is destiny. When I was in kindergarten in 1950, Detroit was the nation’s fifth largest metro area, with 3,170,000 people. Now it ranks 11th and is soon to be overtaken by Phoenix, which had 331,000 people in 1950. In the close 1960 election, in which electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, Michigan cast 20 votes for John Kennedy and Arizona cast four votes for Richard Nixon; New York cast 45 votes for Kennedy and Florida cast 10 votes for Nixon. In 2012, Michigan will likely have 16 electoral votes and Arizona 12; New York will have 29 votes and Florida 29. That’s the kind of political change demographics makes over the years.
We will see whether Barone or the emerging Democratic majority crowd are right.
Greg
Meh. I’m not one to care much about the importance of these things. It seems some people think if you move to a red or a blue state that automatically turns you red or blue as well. If enough people move from a blue state to a red state to start increasing its electoral heft, that population is also going to be tinting the state bluer. Look at what’s happening in Virginia. More people are moving in, but it’s blue north is having more and more of an impact on the state as a whole.
I also think political fortunes change far more quickly than demographics ever will. Look at the change we’ve gone through in the last few years, let alone the last few decades. People who care too much about this stuff also seem to think that people’s political affiliations are static and don’t change over time. Also, there’s just as much generational change occurring over time as there is geographical change. Also, the parties themselves change over time in terms of what positions they take and how strongly.
This type of stuff is just one factor of many in what the future electoral map will look like, and it won’t be the determining one.
Mark Silk
In classic Kevin Phillips style, Barone implies that the GOP will inevitably profit from these demographic shifts. But the “heartland” cannot be assumed to remain consistently Republican, particularly as its growing metro areas (cf. Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta, Va.’s DC suburbs) attract larger numbers of immigrants.
Bubblegum Tate
I think this goes hand in hand with the wingut mantra of “liberals are aborting all their fetuses, so they aren’t making any more liberals! But we’re cranking out kids like you wouldn’t believe! And because political alignment is encoded on DNA, the libs will abort themselves into obscurity, and we will r00l!”
Rome Again
Political affiliation is determined by DNA? Yeah, except when it’s not… as the child of a family of rich greedy republicans, I decided to NOT be what they were. DNA had nothing to do with it, attitude was the factor in my case.
The Other Steve
Interesting… His map looks very much like
this one from 1896
Only the parties are reversed. Is it just a coincidence that Bryan argued against evolution?
Zifnab
I think he was being facetious.
ThymeZone
Arizona has been a Republican state for the fifty years that I have followed its politics …. but is shifting to the left as we speak. Let’s again review the recent election: Arizona became the only state to reject a DOMA initiative by popular vote, grabbed a new Dem house seat and sent the detestable Foghorn Leghorn (J.D. Hayworth) to the showers. Re-elected a gay woman governor, by a huge landslide.
The history of the last 100 years in this country is the history of liberalism and progressive policy. Conservatives have basically nothing to show for all their hoopla. They have exactly one supposedly successful president to point to, the sainted Ronald Reagan, who was actually a disaster in most respects and did nothing but paint over a trainwreck for the middle class by making people feel good while the rich grabbed all the money. And to this day, a lot of them still think they feel good about it. Remember “trickle down economics?” There’s something to get teary-eyed about when the embalmed skeleton of Nancy Reagan shows up on tv the next time.
I don’t think you have a demo shift in this country, I think you are going to see a recovery from a completely fucked up and abused conservative “movement” which never had a coherent or workable policy basis at all, but only had slogans.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Greg’s point is well-taken. However, I’m a geography who eats up this kind of “demographic shift” stuff, and i’m not ready to let it die without thinking a little harder about its effects.
So suppose someone moves from, eh, suburban Los Angeles County to suburban Dallas. They don’t immediately slap a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker over their Kerry/Edwards one, of course. But a few things happen. On one level, they’re more exposed to the GOP point of view, which may shape their thinking on issues they haven’t considered yet.
On a second purely political level, in the short-term their vote may be drowned out by the prevailing political views of their new home. This effect would obviously be most prominent if someone moved from a swing district to a safe district (really a safe district for any party).
On still a third level, the one that Greg et al appear to be emphasizing, the long term effect is to change the prevailing political views in those recipient areas. If one person moves from California to Texas, they’re not going to change Texas much; if half a million do, then the political landscape changes immensely. So barring some DeLayesque attempts to disenfranchise certain voters, I think we’d tend to head toward equilibrium, where there’s no bias toward someone’s vote gaining or losing value as they move. (Their vote would in fact gain or lose value — as I discussed, moving from a swing to a safe district would destroy its value — but my point is, this isn’t predictable on a macro level. Someone can move from a CA swing district to a TX safe one just as easily as vice versa.)
But of course if more Democrats move to areas like Texas where there’s a systematic campaign underway to devalue their votes, then I don’t think the equilibrium holds. It only holds if the consequently greater D power gets them a fairer hearing in redistricting, etc. Being a larger minority but still a minority doesn’t have much to recommend it.
Equal Opportunity Cynic
Err, I’m a geography geek.
BTW, what do you go to school for so you can study this stuff 24/7? Poli Sci?
carpeicthus
Damn you, electoral college. I’d love to have my vote matter in the slightest.
Andrew
I blame the air conditioner.
ThymeZone
It does, in the terms laid out by the Founders. In their view, mens’ (and NOT womens’) votes stood up for the power base represented by the relationship between land, and men.
In that sense, the Electoral College works fine. It protects that relationship, at the expense of pure democracy, which I don’t think was ever on the minds of the Founders at all.
I think that the EC has outlived its usefulness, and I don’t think it’s a hopeless cause.
Jimmmm
TZ has it about right: No matter where they move to or from, eventually Republicans wake up to the fact that they’ve been fucked six ways from Sunday.
What, other than itinerant Federal tax cuts for some, has Movement Conservatism accomplished? The best they could do, absent actually rewriting law, is to put cronies in high places to ignore it (see: Reagan’s Dept of Interior; Bush’s Department/s of Everything)
ThymeZone
Maybe the greatest staged Presidential tv-op ever, the Mission Accomplished speech on the deck of the carrier which had been moved just far enough away from the California shore so that the shoreline wouldn’t show up on tv and spoil the effect.
About an hour of glorious nationalism and icon-worship.
How’s that warm feeling now, everybody? Doesn’t that picture of him in the flight suit just make you urinate in your pants? (Much like probably did just before the carrier landing?)
That was it. That was your Conservative Triumph, while it lasted.
That’s your payoff for the last 40 years of this bullshit.
ThymeZone
For all intents, the so-called Conservative “Movement” is really about like this book.
This article is a must read for all who want to understand the true basis of feelgood politics.
shecky
TZ makes a good point about AZ. In that case, the Republicans changed from Western “Goldwater” conservatives to big government religious conservatives. And the left has shifted to fill the void, being more conservative than, say, the typical Berkeley liberal. It seems to me the more Republicans shift in that direction, the more ideological purity they’ll demand, and the less relevant they’ll be.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Arizona is now a swing state. Montana is now a swing state. Colorado is now a swing state. Virginia is now a swing state. North Carolina is now a swing state. Texas is becoming a swing state, gerrymandering being an effort to staunch that wound to the GOP. All of the Rocky Mountain states have gone from red to purple, and so have several states in the hitherto “solid” South, as well.
Barone’s mistake (if I may presume to call it such) is to assume that “real” Americans will always vote Republican. Comepletely disregarding the traditionally Democratic-leaning immigrant votes, one could just as easily point to trends showing that young Americans vote increasingly Democratic, that educated Americans vote increasingly Democratic, and that women vote increasingly Democratic. These “real” Americans would tend to substantially refute Barone’s analysis.
We’re not going to know the answer to this scenario, because the GOP in its current form is in the midst of a complete implosion. Much depends upon which groups they next decide to include in their pandering-drive for relevance. That will doubtlessly affect the trends of the future.
For now, the only region they seem to have a safe hold on is much of the Deep South, and probably some of the Upper Midwest as well. That’s my layman’s impression of the situation, anyway.
Pb
It wouldn’t surprise me if DNA played some underlying role, actually.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Well, okay, that’s two regions. Goddamn non-editable posts!
Greg
But the rest of my point is that these demographic shifts occur over the long term to reach any noticeable effects. Electoral votes are only reapportioned every ten years, as are electoral districts barring DeLay-like escapades becoming more common. If you’re looking at these kinds of time frames you also have to factor in things like generational shifts, such as how gay people are far more accepted by the young than the old, and the parties themselves shifting, such as how Democrats shy away from gun control now. I think if the population shifts significantly on an issue the parties will shift accordingly, with the benefactor reaching for more because they feel validated and can afford to lose some votes, and the loser compromising more because they want to remain competitive. I think there will always be a rough equilibrium between Democrats and Republicans, the question is where the public as a whole will end up on certain issues.
In terms of which party has the upper hand at any given moment, by far the most important factor will be their general political fortunes and that of their individual candidates. The Democrats taking back congress was more a factor of Bush and Iraq than of shifting demographics. Bush’s previous popularity was more a factor of 9/11 than anything else. This is the way it will continue.
Pb
Hence, why we need to enact stricter voter ID laws (that tend to disenfranchise minorities), purge minorities from the voter rolls, keep sending more young Americans to Iraq, continue to dumb down our schools, and continue to fund and recruit from (with tax dollars and otherwise) parallel, Republican-friendly schools, churches, and other institutions–all coincidences, I’m sure.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
True, keeping the young in ignorance of the world is a vital element of Republican government. The women, in particular, must be kept barefoot, ignorant, and constantly pregnant if this nation has any hope of remaining Christian in accordance with the Otiginal Intent of its nudist, Deist, hemp-growing, slave-banging, rebellious Founders.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
Otiginal= Original. Again, I wish I could edit posts.
jake
From “The Secret”
Oh goody. Someone has written THE definitive handbook for despots, serial killers, cult leaders and those creepy loser bastards who claim to be “misunderstood artists.” But TZ is right. “Thinking” like this explains comments about cake-walks, successes that haven’t happened yet, last throes and the general Peter Pan approach to leadership.
Maybe the wanks who follow the teachings of this
waste of treesbook will get into an all out war with the Bible bangers and the rest of us can have some peace when the last body hits the floor.Pb
Hey, if it was good enough for Strom Thurmond…
Larry M
We will see whether Barone or the emerging Democratic majority crowd are right.
The short answer is neither. Plenty of comments above detail problems with the Barone theory. As for the Democratic majority folks, they make questionable assumptions about the static nature of the voting habits of minorities and other groups.
In the short run, though, i.e., the next decade or so, I do think that the Democrats will likely have a significant advantage because of the Iraq fiasco.
Scruffy McSnufflepuss
It’s pretty much the Hidden Tradition of the South.
It certainly seems like the GOP will soon enjoy another stint in the wilderness, or will disintegrate under the weight of their own contradictions (a la the Federalist party). Then again, anything’s possible.
ThymeZone
That’s the great thing about Magical Thinking (the “secret”, and the basis for modern Republicanism):
It has universal appeal and relevance. Even a sociopath can find something attractive about it. Even the stupidest person on earth can have …. well, power.
Hye, just look at Pat Robertson if you don’t believe me.
Rome Again
Interesting article, but I am atypical, and I follow no blueprint of any sort. I come from a family that I could easily predict the entire day of each one (calling the stockbroker is at the top of each of their lists) yet, I am nothing like them, at all. Sorry, I disagree, DNA has absolutely NOTHING to do with how I behave or what I believe. I am nothing like anyone else in my entire family. On a side note, I do not adhere to behaviors or ideals that I once believed in. I have changed my entire viewpoint on life, philosophy, the universe and everything by following thought patterns that are not common. I think very differently from what I once did, and also very differently from many other people’s typical thought patterns.
Rome Again
Boy, are there going to be a lot of pissed off people when they realize the world of make-believe isn’t real.
So the GOP has been doing nothing more than playing a children’s game, can we get some adults to take over now?
matt
I didn’t realize you were quoting from the article until I got to
I had a serious “wtf” moment, heh. I missed the colon the first time through, I think I need glasses.
ThymeZone
Today’s edition of Things You Never Want To Hear Your Doctor Say.
ThymeZone
But for one shining hour on the deck of that carrier, four years ago, it was wonderful to think that it was for real, wasn’t it?
I still get goosebumps.
matt
Luckily, I had just put my drink down.
Pb
So…
1. Recessive genes
2. The mailman!
3. Mutation / transcription error
4. Part of that other chunk of the statistic that’s explained by environmental factors instead
ThymeZone
;)
Rome Again
No, it was farce the first time I saw it. I never believed it for a single second. I know you didn’t either, don’t try to kid me into believing otherwise.
ThymeZone
Unfortunately, I am a lot like some people in mine.
My dream of finding out that I was adopted ….. dashed to hell years ago.
Pug
To check on the credibility of anything Michael Barone writes, take a quick look at anything he has written on the subject of Iraq. Barone starts with what he wants to be true and then spins his tales with factoids.
Both demographics and policy issues are swinging away from Republicans right now. One thing Democrats can thank G.W. Bush for is that he has almost single-handedly dynamited the politcal prospects of Republican candidates. Not that it has been worth it.
Rome Again
1. Perhaps, so does that make me “opposite life”?
2. Sorry, that was child #3, I’m child #5.
3. Highly doubt it, they drilled manners into my head, I still have them.
4. Environmental factors would completely negate what you’re saying. I tend to think that’s a more likely scenario.
ThymeZone
You know how I respect a guy in a flightsuit! Even one that is wet all down one leg.
Jay C
Basically, what Larry M. said: at 2:07. Every so often some political writer or pollster will come out with a book or essay arguing future political trends based on some hifalutin “Demography is Destiny” model (“States A, B and C are going lose the Group Xes, who will move to States D, E and F and dilute or negate the votes of Group Y”) which, more often than not, never pans out.
Over the very long (generational) term, maybe: but trying to divine the results of near-term-future elections based on these sort of partisan generalizations is a mug’s game, IMO: for one, these “models” don’t take into account the two major factors that political consultants (the same ones, usually) swear will make the difference in a national election: issues, and personalities (the latter, sadly, more often the more important of the two).
Even in “red” or “blue” states, when it comes to national politics (and mostly so in Presidential races) an unpopular war, or an economic downturn will depress enthusiasm for incumbents, say; or an attractive “newcomer” will outpull a tired old hack – regardless of party affiliation (and mostly in statewide and national races it is the “undecideds” who make the difference).
Demographic projections aren’t always Teh Bunk – but politics, like most human endeavors is too complex to be reduced to facile formulae. Except for Republicans, of course: they love them their formulae.
Pb
Not necessarily, but it might make you more like your grandparents than your parents.
BFR
I’m pretty sure Barone is full of crap. For example, he reaches a sweeping conclusion that people are moving out of the California metro areas. This appears to be based on population changes for LA, Orange, San Diego, SF, Alameda (probably), Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.
He neglects to include some adjacent counties (along with population increases):
Contra Costa: 6.7%
Riverside: 25%
Sacramento (more people than you’d think commute into SF/SJ): 10.8%
San Bernardino: 14.2%
Ventura: 5.2%
Maybe I’m cherry picking too but I think you could argue just as well for this set of counties.
The net change if you include all of these counties, plus Barone’s is a net increase of 6.5%. Nationwide, the population increased by only 5% over the same period.
BFR
Not to mention that these cities have nothing more in common than Barone’s decision to lump them together:
The fourth category is what I call the Static Cities. These are 18 metropolitan areas with immigrant inflow between zero and 4%, with domestic inflow up to 3% and domestic outflow no higher than 1%. They seem to be holding their own economically, but are not surging ahead and some are in danger of falling back. Philadelphia makes the list, and so do Baltimore, Hartford and Providence in the East.
Surprisingly, some Western cities that boomed in the 1990s are in this category too: Seattle (the tech bust again), Denver, Portland. In the Midwest, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Columbus and Indianapolis are doing better than their Rust Belt neighbors and make the list. In the South, Norfolk, Memphis, Louisville, Oklahoma City and Birmingham are lagging enough behind the Interior Boomtowns to do so.
I feel dumber for having read this article.
sidereal
Exposing Dennis Miller as a total clownshoe, and for that I thank it. Speaking of, where’s he off to these days?
Actually, on first read I didn’t notice Barone making any predictions. Certainly the prevailing the opinion in the comments here is that he’s predicting Republican benefit, but if he’s doing it in the article, he’s being very coy about it. In fact, he writes: “What’s now in store is a shifting of political weight … toward the Interior Megalopolises, where most voters are private-sector religious Republicans but where significant immigrant populations lean to the Democrats.” Emphasis mine.
I also find he’s categories a little constrained to fit his narrative. Orlando and Jacksonville are inland cities? Uh.
My easy prediction: Immigrants continue to lean heavily Democratic (and how could they not, given the rampant and vehement anti-immigrant stance of the GOP), so the Dem coastal strongholds maintain their current skew, while the Dem emigrants to the heartland push the Mountain West blue and the midwest and south purple. Net advantage Dems.
matt
At any rate, I think the real problem for the GOP isn’t that their base is crazy, it’s that their base is crazy and controls the party. The left has an equal number of crazies, but for the most part, they’re confined to the fringes.
For the Democratic party it would be like if Daily Kos was filled with PC militant lesbian vegans in shits made from hemp. Yes those people exist, yes they’re part of the left and the ones who don’t vote Green, vote Democratic, but they have virtually no power or influence within Democratic party.
What happened to the Republican party, more so than anything demographic, was that their base became their fringe.
Read Red Sate or Powerline or FR, the problem, as far as they’re concerned, isn’t that the party is too right wing, it’s that it isn’t right wing enough. And since these folks aren’t the ones holding abortion pictures outside of clinics, they can’t be blown off as fringe. They’re the motivated, activist mainstream base of the Republican party. And so that basically screws Republican politicians.
There’s all the difference in the world between the “base” and the “fringe” and people often conflate the two. You can survive without the fringe, not so much without the base. If the base becomes the fringe, the party becomes the fringe, and so the party begins to crumble, and there’s no going back, because you wouldn’t be going back against the fringe, you’d be pushing back against your own base.
If they moderate their party, they won’t be ostracizing the people who chain themselves to abortion clinics, they’ll be ostracizing people who post at Red State. The Republican party is in this weird catch-22.
Holy god this is a rambling post.
The Other Steve
I remember when David Brooks was talking about the exurbs, and how meaningful that was going to be.
Of course in 2006, exurb voters went Democratic by large margins.
To another point, I’ve noticed a great many San Francisco Republicans. That is, because they live in some ultra-liberal city, they rebel and become Republican. Which works until they move to Texas and then they realize what a shithole Republicans create.
So I’m not sure people moving to these “red states” is going to result in the shift that they dream of.
matt
I’m making a preemptive strike here quoting this!
Zombie Santa Claus
Well, if you eat enough brownies and cookies with weed in them…
les
Barone’s whole argument seems to assume that, while the population is dancin’ around, the parties stay the same. Sorry bro, this ain’t your Daddy’s Republicans.
ThymeZone
I’ve watched enough Everybody Loves Raymond to know that the Barones are full of shit.
Rome Again
Nope, they were all conventional, I’m not the least bit conventional, at all.
Tax Analyst
Hey, what’s wrong with being in kindergarten in 1950? I was in K-garten in 1954 or 1955. It’s not THAT fucking old…hmmm…is it?
Excuse me, I have to go take a high-colonic now.
speaking of which, I found a quote about said hc’s just a moment ago…from one, uh…”Dick Howninger”, apparently a champion of and participant in the “exploding” world of high-colonics…
“It’s exploding around the world,” says Dick Hownninger, executive director of the International Association for Colon Hydrotherapy, based in San Antonio, Texas. The association has 800 members, up from just 100 members only four years ago. Most are colon therapists, who administer treatments.”
I’m sure this is as f-ass-cinating to you as I seem to have found it…
ThymeZone
Note to self: More indoor activities for a while.
Rome Again
You admire a guy who can’t fly walking around acting like he can? Come on TZ, I know you better than that. I don’t believe that for a single moment.
Rome Again
Not until August. ;)
Tax Analyst
Yes, I found that wording particularly apt. It appears old “Dick” has a way either has a way with words or is just utterly & completely clueless.
Good idea to stay out of the line of fire, though…
It does create quite an interesting bit of imagery, though, don’tcha think? Talk about the “shit hitting the fan”.
Zifnab
Is anyone else as incredibly turned on by that as I am? Dreggas?
Wilfred
“Colon out, around the world, are you ready for a brand new sheet?”
That would explain the burst of semi-colons;)
ThymeZone
Now THESE are people who can tell you to blow it out your ass, and mean it.
Or, did this thread just go completely gay?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
jake
And if you must go out, don’t forget your umbrella and rubbers.
Talk about a short sharp shower of shit.
stickler
Um, not to distract from the happy colon-talk, but …
This isn’t quite right. The wingnut crazy stuff, especially the religious crazy stuff, hurts SOME Republican politicians. In places like the Rocky Mountains, let alone the West Coast, there are still plenty of Goldwater-like conservative voters. But the God-talk turns them off big time, since it almost always is accompanied by an expansion of state power into the bedroom, and is usually being peddled by creeps with Alabama accents.
Where this stuff works is in the South, of course. So what works in Alabama drags the GOP down in Nevada. The result may very well be to turn the GOP into the party of the Old Confederacy and nowhere else.
Zombie Santa Claus
The South shall rise again!
Zombie Santa Claus
The South shall rise again!
tBone
When the subject is FR, Red State and Powerline, a discussion about assholes is perfectly on-topic.
The Other Steve
If you don’t think that’s already happened. Go read the old Confederacy Constitution, and note the similarities with the Republican party platform.
Ted
Equal Opportunity Cynic Says:
Err, I’m a geography geek.
BTW, what do you go to school for so you can study this stuff 24/7? Poli Sci?
May 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Yes, that would be political science.
André Kenji
The South is very complex region. While the republicans are gaining space in states like Alabama, Texas and Georgia, they are not being so sucessfull in states like Tennessee, Kentucky and Florida.
I think that the problem of the GOP on the long run is not being atractive to Southern voters, but being attractive to the social conservatives and the independents on the same time.
And there is also the question: what will happen when all these illegals naturalizes themselves and get to vote? They will not vote Republican, and that´s can put both Florida and Texas on the Democrats side.