Interesting little data point, here:
Can you guess the demographic that consistently sides with [Kim] Davis more than any other? It’s not Republicans. Here are the results by race when you ask the basic question of whether she should be required to issue licenses despite her religious objections…
…and I bet you can guess the rest, just from context clues in the passage above.
PS: Oh, I don’t expect things to change tomorrow. But I do expect things to change. They generally do, and typically when you least expect them to.
Interesting tweet, this.
Basically, it would appear that the rate of Hispanic immigration – which appeared to be ever-booming in, say, 2004 – has instead decreased. Couple that with the news that illegal immigrant population has stablilized, AND the fact that the birth rate among immigrants is rapidly approaching that of the native born American population, and… well. There has been a remarkably consistent strategy by the Democratic party over the last ten years to court minority votes at the expense of white ones. Do you think that the Democrats were assiduously keeping up with the latest demographic studies during that time? – Because I don’t think that the Democrats were assiduously keeping up with the latest demographic studies during that time.
If I was a Democratic strategist, these Gallup poll crosstabs would be giving me conniptions, fits, and the galloping staggers:
Continue reading Democrats not doing well with this permanent majority thing.
…Which is to say: Sean apparently assumed that it was reasonable to expect good-faith disagreement from Democratic demographers.
In my recent four-part series on demographic changes, the 2012 elections and immigration reform, I suggested that census data and exit polls reveal that some 6 million white voters opted to sit out last November’s election. The data show these non-voters were not primarily Southerners or evangelicals, but were located in Northeast, Midwest and Southwest. Mainly, they fit the profile of “Reagan Democrats” or, more recently, a Ross Perot supporter. For these no-shows, Mitt Romney was not a natural fit.
I drew the conclusion that one path forward for the Republican Party could involve, in part, reaching out to these voters by altering the GOP’s economic platform and messaging. There are still valid questions that flow from this: How much do Republicans have to change to win these voters? Do they pay a price with upper-income whites for such a shift? Can they make these changes and still be Republicans? What is the best path forward? These are great questions for further debate, but my point in the series was simply that there really are multiple ways to skin the electoral cat, and that the much-uttered meme “Republicans must pass the Gang of Eight bill if they ever hope to win another national election” is sorely lacking, at best.
Some critics have not been content to argue these points. They have mischaracterized them as urging Republicans to ignore non-white voters. They then “double down,” if you will, by attacking their own mischaracterization.
Continue reading @SeanTrende has made a remarkably rookie mistake in this demographics post. #notreally
…than it looks:
In 2012 – according to exit polls – House Democrats won 60 percent of voters ages 18-29, 51 percent of voters ages 30-44, 47 percent of voters ages 45-64, and 44 percent of voters ages 65 and older. That combination was enough to win them a 49 percent to 48 percent plurality of all votes cast for House (even if Republicans still kept a comfortable majority thanks to Democrats’ inefficient distribution on the map and redistricting).
But had Democrats won the same levels of support among each age group in 2010, Republicans would still have won a clear plurality of all votes cast that year. How? Voters under the age of 30 were 19 percent of all voters in 2012, but just 12 percent of all voters in 2010. Likewise, voters 65 and up were 17 percent of all voters in 2012, but 21 percent of all voters in 2012. Herein lies the biggest danger for Democratic candidates in 2014.
And it looks pretty bad. Basically, the Democrats have the usual “their demographic groups don’t turn out in midterms” problem; and there’s no indication that they’re doing anything effective in reversing that for 2014. Or, more accurately, there’s no indication that Barack Obama is doing anything effective in reversing that for 2014, largely because he doesn’t really care. “I won,” remember? That’s the motto of this administration, first, last, and always.
Continue reading Actually, this Cook Political Report is even MORE problematical for Democrats…
And by ‘D.C.’ Politico means ‘The trendy parts of D.C.’
I’d just like to make that clear. When Politico is writing things like:
The rest of the country has a new reason to hate the inside-the-Beltway crowd: Our economy is better than yours.
At 6.2 percent, the unemployment rate in the D.C. metro region is lower than in any other major metropolitan area in the country — and far below the 9.5 percent national average.
…they’re more or less obscuring the problems that DC itself has. They do note the 1/3rd illiteracy rate in the District itself, not to mention unemployment (which is either 10.9% or 11.3%, depending on which official harbinger of doom you believe more), but the article writer seems more interested in interviewing Republican politicians about how awful DC is compared to the rest of the country than it is in interviewing Democratic ones about why it is that the non-tourist part of the city of DC is in such bad shape. After all, as Politico itself notes: “[f]ifteen cents of every dollar the federal government doles out throughout the world on goods and services is spent in the D.C. metro area,” which raises the question of why the District itself isn’t benefiting more – particularly since it’s a Democratic-controlled city in a Democratic-controlled area in a Democratic-controlled administration. It should be benefiting more, but it isn’t.
And I can’t possibly imagine why that might be.
Crossposted to RedState.